CAS Fenerbahçe Gerekçeli Kararları (Trabzonleaks)

'fribunc!
l Arbitral du Sport
c:ouri of ArbitratiOi1 ['or Spori
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah~e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA
ARBITRAL AWARD
delivered by the
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:
President:
Mr Manfred Nan, Attorney-at-law, Arnhem, the Netherlands
Arbitrators:
Mr Ulrich Haas, Professor, Zurich, Switzerland

Mr Rui Botica Santos, Attorney-at-law, Lisbon, Portugal
Ad hoc Clerk:
Mr Dennis Koolaard, Attorney-at-law, Arnhem, the Netherlands
in the arbitration between

FENERBAH<;;E SPOR KULUBU, Istanbul, Turkey
Represented by Mr Andreas Zagklis, Mr Christian Keidel and Mr Heiner Kahlert,
Attomeys-at-law, Munich, Getmany, Mr Deniz Tolga Aytore, Mr Abdullah Kaya, Mr Ayhan
<;;opuroglu, Mr Abdurrahim Erol and Mr Ahmet Melih Turan, Legal Counsel, and Mr Aziz
Y!ldmm, President
as Appellant
and
UNION OF EUROPEAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS (UEFA), Nyon, Switzerland
Represented by Dr Jean-Marc Reymond and Ms Delphine Rochat, Attomeys-at-law,
Lausaffile, Switzerland, Mr Adam Lewis Q.C., Barrister, London, United Kingdom, Mr
Emilio Garcia Silvero, Head of Disciplinary and Integrity and Mr Miguel Lietard
Ferm\ndez-Palacios, Disciplinary Inspector
as Respondent
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

Court of Arbitration for Sport
I.
II.
PARTIES
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Ku!Ubii v. UEFA- Page 2
Background Facts
The TFF Ethics Committee Report
The Decisions of the TFF PFDC
The Decisions of the TFF Board of Appeals
The Decision of the 16th High Criminal Court oflstanbul
The Decision ofthe Control and Disciplinary Body ofUEFA
The Decision ofthe Appeals Body ofUEFA
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
ADMISSIBILITY
JURISDICTION
APPLICABLELAW
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
MERITS
A. The Main Issues

1. Procedural and formal aspects:
a. Was the legal principle of res iudicata violated by UEFA?
b.
c.
Do the UEFA CDB Decision and the Appealed Decision violate the
ne his in idem principle?
Was the UEFA CDB competent to instigate disciplinary
proceedings against Fenerbahre and were the sanctions imposed
in accordunce with tlte legality principle?
i.
ii.
d.
e.
f.
Does article 2.06 UCLR require that article 2.05 was

previously applied?
Is there a sufficient legal basis for the disciplinary
measure?
Was UEFA estopped fi"om instigating disciplinary proceedings

ugainst Fenerbaltre because of the UEFA Geneml Secretury's
lettei dated 23 August 2011?
Can UEFA impose a sanction on Fenerbahre even if it deems tlwt
the level of informution obtained in relation to the individuals is
not sufficient to issue a sunction against tltem yet?
Should the disciplinary proceedings be remitted back to UEFA due
to a violation of several procedural rights?
2. Merits:
g.
Do the merits of tlte case 1varrant disciplinmy sanctions being

imposed on Fenerbuhre?
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
The standard of proof to be applied

General arguments of the parties
Gen~Jerbirligi SK v. Fenerbah~e (7 March 2011)
Fenerbah~e v. IBB Spor (1 May 2011)
Fenerbah~e v. MKE Anlmragiicii (15 May 2011)
Sivasspor v. Fenerbah~e (22 May 2011)
Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 3
ft.
If so, was the sanction imposed on F enerbahr;e proportionate?

i.
ii.
iii.
X.
B. Conclusion
CosTs
UEFA's alleged violation of the equality principle

UEFA's alleged violation of article 17 of the UEFA DR
The proportionality ofthe sanction
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spor Kullibii v. UEFA- Page 4

I.
PARTIES
1.
Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii (hereinafter: the "Appellant" or "Fenerbah9e") is a

professional football club with its registered headquarters in Istanbul, Turkey.
Fenerbah9e is a member of the Turkish Football Federation (hereinafter: the "TFF"),
which in tum is affiliated to the Union of European Football Associations (hereinafter:
"UEFA") and the Federation Intemationale de Football Association (hereinafter: the
"FIFA").
2.
UEFA (hereinafter also referred to as: the "Respondent") is an association under Swiss
law and has its registered headqumters in Nyon, Switzerland. UEFA is the goveming
body of European football. It exercises regulatory, supervisory and disciplinary
functions over national federations, clubs, officials and players in Europe.
II.
FACTUALBACKGROUND
A.
Background Facts
3.
Below is a surmnary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the
written and oral submissions of the parties and the evidence examined in the course of
the proceedings and at the heming. This background is made for the sole purpose of
providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts may be set out, where
relevant, in connection with the legal discussion.
4.
On 21 February, 26 February, 6 March, 7 March, 20 March, and 9 April 2011

respectively, certain matches were played in the Turkish Siiper Lig, of which it was
later said that in respect of these matches bribes were paid in order to lose or incentive
bonuses were paid by individuals related to Fenerbah9e.
5.
On 14 April 2011 a new Turkish law numbered 6222 came into effect. This law made
match-fixing a specific criminal offence in Turkey.
6.
On 17 April, 22 April2011 and 1 May 2011 respectively, certain matches were played
in the Turkish Siiper Lig, of which it was later said that in respect of these matches
bribes were paid in order to lose or incentive bonuses were paid by individuals related
to Fenerbah9e.
7.
On 5 May 2011, Fenerbah9e signed and submitted an UEFA Club Competitions

2011/2012 Admission Criteria Fotm (hereinafter: the "2011/2012 Admission Form")
to UEFA in order to participate in the 2011/2012 UEFA Champions League season,
by which it confitmed that "the above-mentioned club [i.e. Fenerbah9e] has not been
directly and/or indirectly involved in any activity aimed at arranging or influencing
the outcome of a match at national or international level since 27 April 2007".
8.
On 8 May, 15 May and 22 May 2011 respectively, certain matches were played in the
Turkish Siiper Lig, of which it was later said that in respect of these matches bribes
were paid in order to lose or incentive bonuses were paid by individuals related to
Fenerbah9e.
Tribunal Arbitral c!u Sport
9.
On 22 May 2011, Fenerbah9e won the Turkish Siiper Ligand qualified automatically
for the group stage of the UEFA Champions League in the 2011/2012 season.
10.
On 3 July 2011, the Turkish police atTested and detained 61 individuals as part of
investigations pursued in matters concerning match-fixing within Turkish football. Mr
Aziz Y!ldmm, President of Fenerbah9e, Mr Mehmet $ekip Mosturoglu, Vicepresident of Fenerbah9e, Mr Ilhan Ek~ioglu, Board member of Fenerbahye, Mr
Alaeddin Yildmm, Board member of Fenerbah9e, Mr Cemil Turhan, Manager of
Fenerbah9e, and Mr Tamer Yelkovan, Finance Director of Fenerbah9e, were among
the persons who were suspected of having conducted match-fixing activities in respect
of several matches played during the (second half of the) football season 2010/2011.
11.
On 11 July 2011, the Executive Committee of the TFF requested the Ethics
Committee of the TFF to commence with an investigation on match-fixing in Turkish
football.
12.
On 20 July 2011, the Turkish public prosecutor provided the TFF Ethics Committee
with information and material in relation to the criminal investigation.
13.
On 22 August 2011, a meeting took place between Mr Piene Comu, UEFA Chief
Legal Counsel for Integrity and Regulatory Mfairs, TFF Officials and Mr Mehmet
Berk, state prosecutor in Turkey.
14.
On 23 August 2011, Mr Gianni Infantino, UEFA General Secretary, issued a letter to

the TFF with, inter alia, the following content:
"(. ..) [G]iven the evidence that now exists, it appears to us that Fenerbache [sic]
should not be eligible to participate in the UEFA Champions League this season.
In the circumstances, it also appears that the appropriate course of action would
now be for Fenerbache [sic] to withdraw its participation jiom the UEFA
Champions League for this season. Alternatively, the TFF may withdraw the club
from the competition.
We should point out that if one or other of these paths of action is not taken and
UEFA has to open its own Disciplinary Procedures against the club (whether now
or in the coming months) an eventual sanction is likely to be considerably more
severe, in particular, if the club is found guilty of lying when it completed the
Admission Criteria form confirming that it had not been involved in any matchfixing activity since April 2007. Whilst we cannot predict the form of sanction that
might finally be imposed we can advise that in some other cases of match-fixing
(e.g. Pobeda) clubs have been banned from participation in UEFA club
competitions for up to eight years.
For the sake of completeness, we must also advise you that, if the TFF does not
deal with this matter now this will also lead to appropriate disciplinary steps
being taken against the TFF. As you will understand, UEFA cannot accept, in all
these circumstances, that Fenerbache [sic] starts in the UEFA Champions League
this season and is then subsequently excluded from the competition because
involvement in match-fixing is finally established. (. ..)"

Court of Arbitration for Sporl
15.
On 24 August 2011, the Executive Committee of the TFF informed UEFA that "we
decided that Fenerbahr;e FC will not participate to UEFA Champions League
competition this season".
16.
On 25 August 2011, following an appeal of Fenerbah9e against the decision of the

TFF Executive Committee, the TFF Arbitral Committee rejected Fenerbah9e's appeal
and application for a stay of the TFF's decision to withdraw it from the Champions
League for the 2011/2012 season.
17.
On 1 September 2011, Fenerbah9e filed a statement of appeal and/or a request for

arbitration with the Court of Arbitration for Spmt (hereinafter: "CAS"). This
submission included a request for provisional measures, which was rejected by CAS
on 9 September 2011.
18.
On 3 November 2011, CAS rejected a subsequent request for provisional measures of

Fenerbah9e.
19.
On 2 December 2011, the Turkish public prosecutor issued a criminal indictment

against numerous individuals, including officials ofFenerbah9e.
20.
On 3 January 2012, the TFF Professional Football Disciplinary Committee

(hereinafter: the "TFF PFDC") instigated disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbah9e
and other Turkish football clubs, as well as numerous individuals concerning the
alleged match-fixing.
21.
On 12 or 15 Febmary 2012, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector received the Police

Digest.
22.
On 25 April 2012, Fenerbah9e withdrew its appeal filed with CAS on 1 September
2011. The TFF's decision to withdraw Fenerbah9e from the 2011/2012 Champions
League season thereby became final and binding.
B.
The TFF Ethics Committee Report
23.
On 26 April 2012, the TFF Ethics Committee issued its repmt, investigating matchfixing allegations in respect of several individual matches, including matches of
Fenerbah9e. The relevant conclusions and findings in this report are given below.
24.
Regarding the match between Gen9lerbirligi and Fenerbah9e of 7 March 2011, the
TFF Ethics Committee came, inter alia, to the following conclusions in respect of
Fenerbah9e officials and Fenerbah9e itself:
"There is no sufficient evidence to form an opmwn that Aziz Y1ldmm was
involved in or attempted to match fixing activities;
ilhan Yilksel Ekioglu attempted to match fixing activities;
( .. .)
There is no sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that

Tamer Yelkovan was involved in or attempted to match fixing activities;

CAS 2013/N3256 Fenerbahye Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 7
( .. .)
Although match fixing activities should be attributed to Fenerbahi;e Sports Club

as ilhan Yiiksel Ek$ioglu is Board Member of Fenerbah9e, there is no proof
showing that other board members of Fenerbah9e Club were aware of such
activities. Particularly ilhan Yiiksel Ek$ioglu stated in his verbal statement to TFF
Ethics Committee that Board ofDirectors took the decisions in the meetings about
the transactions he would carry out on behalf of the club and also assignments
and authorization were decided in those meetings but there are no documents or
decisions in the file that ilhan Yiiksel Elcyioglu was assigned or authorized in this
match. Furthermore as stated in inspector's report no abnormalities of football
players of Gen9lerbirligi were observed during the match. "
25.
Regarding the match between Fenerbahc;e and IBB Spor of 1 May 2011, the TFF
Ethics Committee came, inter alia, to the following conclusions in respect of
Fenerbahc;e officials:
"There is no sufficient evidence to form an opinion establish that Aziz Yzldznm

was involved in or attempted to match fixing activities. ( .. .)
There is no szifficient eveidence to form an opinion that ilhan Yiiksel Elcyioglu was
involved in or attempted to match fixing activities. ( .. .)
There is no sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that
Cemil Turhan was involved in or attempted to match fixing activities; There is no
sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Taner [sic]
Yelkovan was involved in or attempted to match fixing activities;
( .. .)
Due to the monetary relationship between ibrahim Akin and YusufTuranlz which
could not be related with Fenerbah9e Sports Club executives; the survey reports
and in the course of the competition; being unable to observe any abnormality
resulting to a suspicion in regard with [IBB Spor] players' pe1jormance; it is
considered to be appropriate for not to attribute the match-fixing allegations to
Fenerbah9e Club. "
26.
Regarding the match between Fenerbahc;e and MKE Ankaragiicii of 15 May 2011, the
TFF Ethics Committee came, inter alia, to the following conclusions:
"Aziz Ylldmm ; not found to have any relation with the concrete event in this
competition;
ilhan Yiiksel Elcyioglu; attempted match fixing;
Cemil Turhan ; attempted match fixing;
( .. .)

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e SporKuliibii v. UEFA- Page 8
Mehmet :)ekip Mosturoglu: sufficient evidence was not found in direction of match
fixing attempt;
(. ..)
Although ilhan Yiiksel Elcyioglu is the Board Member of Fenerbahr;e Sports Club,
match fixing attempt is considered to be attributed to Fenerbahr;e Sports Club 1; as
no evidence was found in regard with the other board members of Fenerbahr;e
Sports Club's awareness of the event; especially in ilhan Yuksel Elcyioglu 's verbal
statement to TFF Ethics Committee, although he declared that the Board of
Directors has resolved for delegation of authority and assignment relating to his
transactions on behalf of the club; no resolution or document was found relating
to any delegation of authority nor assignment of1 Yuksel Ektjioglu relating to this
competition; in addition, no abnormality is observed to legitimate the doubt of
Ankaragilcii players' game in the pitch in the inspection reports and in the course
of the match. "
27.
Regarding the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbah<;e of 22 May 2011, the TFF
Ethics Committee came, inter alia, to the following conclusion:
"There is no sufficient evidence to form an opinion about Aziz Y1ldzrzm;
There are is [sic] sufficient evidence to form an opinion about ilhan Yiiksel
Ektjioglu"
{. ..)
There is no sufficient evidence to form an opinion about Tamer Yelkovan;"
C.
The Decisions of the TFF PFDC
28.
On 6 May 2012, the TFF PFDC issued its decisions, sanctioning Mr Ek~ioglu, Board
member of Fenerbah<;e, Mr Mosturoglu, Vice-president of Fenerbah<;e, and Mr
Turhan, Manager of Fenerbah<;e, with bans on exercising any football-related activity
for three years, one year and one year respectively, however acquitting Mr Aziz
Y!ldmm, Fenerbah<;e and the other Turkish football clubs.
29.
Regarding the match between Gen<;lerbirligi and Fenerbah<;e of 7 March 2011, the
TFF PFDC carne, inter alia, to the following conclusions:
"1- THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on
Fenerbahr;e A.$. Club brought before on charges of influencing the match result,
(majority)
(. ..)
1
Although it appears fiom the wording of this conclusion that Fenerbahye was considered guilty of matchfixing, tbe TFF Ethics Committee came to the conclusion that Fenerbahye could not be held responsible for the
actions of Mr Ek~ioglu.

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahye Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 9
3- THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on

Aziz YILDIRIM (majority), (. ..) Tamer YELKOVAN (...) brought before on
charges of influencing the match result,
4- Pursuant to the article 58/2-a of the Football Disciplinary Regulations, A BAN
ON EXERCISING ANY FOOTBALL RELATED ACTIVITY FOR A PERIOD OF
ONE (I) YEAR shall be imposed on jlhan Yiiksel EK$IOGLU for attempting to
influence match result, (. ..)"
30.
The majority of the TFF PFDC thus came to the conclusion that there were no grounds
to impose a sanction on Mr Aziz Y1ldmm and Fenerbah9e in respect of this match.
However, the dissenting opinion concludes as follows:
"Due to the opinion reached that Aziz Yzldmm, who was brought before out
committee pursuant to the "influencing match results" infiingements stipulated in
art. 58 of FDR, committed the attributed crime in the case at hand, whereas he
should have been sanctioned with "a ban on exercising any football related
activity for a year" pursuant to the previous text of FDR 58/2, ruling on the
decision above decision is unjust and unlawfitl. I disagree with the majority
opinion.
Whereas pursuant to FDR art. 58/1-b a sanction of "relegation to a lower
division" should have been imposed on the club, ruling on the decision above is
unjust and unlawful. I disagree with the majority opinion. "
31.
Regarding the match between Fenerbah9e and IBB Spor of 1 May 2011, the TFF
PFDC came, inter alia, to the following conclusions:
"1- THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on

Fenerbah9e A.$ Club (majority) and [IBB Spor] brought before on charges of
influencing the match result,
2- THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on
Aziz Yzldzrzm (majority}, Yiiksel EK$jQGLU, Tamer YELKOVAN, Cemil
TURBAN(. ..) brought before on charges of irifluencing the match result, "
32.
The majority of the TFF PFDC thus came to the conclusion that there were no grounds
to impose a sanction on Mr Aziz Y1ldmm and Fenerbahc;:e in respect of this match.
However, the dissenting opinion concludes as follows:
"Whereas it must be decided that Aziz Yzldmm, who was forwarded for violation
of "affecting the result of competition" in 581h article of FDT, is given the
"PENALTY OF DEPROVATION OF RIGHTS FOR ONE YEAR" as per FTD
58/2 since conviction that Aziz Yzldmm committed the crime attributed to himself
has been reached, decision above is unjust and unlawful. Therefore I do not agree
with the majority opinion.
Again likewise, whereas forwarded Fenerbah9e Club about this competition must
be given the "PENALTY OF RELEGATION TO THE LOWER LEAGUE" as per

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 10
FTD 58/I-b article, decision above is unjust and unla11ful. Therefore I do not
agree with the mqjority opinion."
33.
Regarding the match between Fenerbah9e and MKE Anlcaragiicii of 15 May 2011, the
TFF PFDC came, inter alia, to the following conclusions:
"I THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on
Fenerbahr;e A.$. Club, brought before on charges of influencing the match result,
(By majority of votes)
( .. .)
4 THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on

Aziz Yzldmm (...) brought before on charges of influencing the match result,
5 ilhan Yiiksel Efcyioglu be sanctioned with A BAN ON EXERCISING ANY
FOOTBALL RELATED ACTIVITY FOR A PERIOD OF A YEAR pursuant to art.
58/2-a ofFDRfor attempting to influence the result of this match. ( .. .)
6 Cemil Ttahan be sanctioned with A BAN ON EXERCISING ANY FOOTBALL
RELATED ACTIVITY FOR A PERIOD OF A YEAR pursuant to art. 58/2-a of
FDRfor attempting to influence the result of this match."
34.
The majority of the TFF PFDC thus came to the conclusion that no sanction was to be
imposed on Fenerbah9e in respect ofthis match. However, the dissenting concludes as
follows:
"Whereas a sanction should have been imposed pursuant to the relevant article of
the regulations, a decision stating that "there are no grounds for the imposition of
a sanction" on Fenerbahr;e brought before our Committee with regard to this
match, is unjust and unla11ful. "
35.
D.
The TFF PFDC did not render a decision regarding the alleged fixing of the match
between Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e of22 May 2011 by Fenerbah9e officials.
The Decisions of the TFF Board of Appeals
36.
On 4 June 2012, following twelve appeals having been filed against the TFF PFDC
decisions, the TFF Board of Appeals dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the TFF
PFDC decisions, which decisions have become final and binding.
37.
Regarding the involvement of Mr Ek~ioglu in attempting to fix the match between

Gen9lerbirligi and Fenerbah9e of 7 March 2011, the TFF Board of Appeals came to
the following conclusion:
"TO APPROVE THE PUNISHMENT OF BAN ON EXERCISING ANY
FOOTBALL RELATED ACTIVITY FOR A PERIOD OF I YEAR imposed on
iLHAN YUKSEL EK$IOGLU for attempting to influence the match result
pursuant to article 58/2-a of Football Disciplinary Regulations with the resolution

nos. E.2011/2012-10 and K.2011/2012-1341 dated 06.05.2012 in relation with

Gem;:lerbirligi-Fenerbah9e A$ competition played on 07.03.2011,"
38.
The TFF Board of Appeals did not address the alleged involvement of Fenerbah9e
officials in an attempt to fix the match between Fenerbah9e and IBB Spor of 1 May
2011, as none of the Fenerbah9e officials that were accused of having attempted to fix
this match were convicted by the TFF PFDC.
39.
Regarding the match between Fenerbah9e and MKE Ankaragiicii of 15 May 2011, the
TFF Board of Appeals came to the following conclusion:
"TO APPROVE THE PUNISHMENT OF BAN ON EXERCISING ANY
FOOTBALL RELATED ACTIVITY FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR imposed on
jLHAN YUKSEL EKJ)IOGLU for incomplete attempt to influence the match result
pursuant to article 58/2-a ofFootball Disciplinary Regulations with the resolution
nos. E.2011/2012-10, K.2011/2012- 1355 dated 06.05.2012 in relation with
Fenerbah9e A$-MKE Ankaragiicii competition played on 15. 05.2011.
( .. .)
Reject the objection made by CEMiL TURHAN and APPROVE THE PENALTY
OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS FOR 1 YEAR imposed by PFDC pursuant to the
5812-a article of FDR about CEMiL TURHAN for attempt to irifluence the match
result by the resolution no. E.201l/2012-10, K.2011/2012-1355 dated 06.05.2012
with regard to Fenerbah9e A$- MKE Ankaragiicii match played on 15. 05.2011;"
40.
E.
The TFF Board of Appeals did not address the alleged fixing of the match between
Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e of 22 May 2011 by Fenerb<:~h9e officials as the TFF PFDC
did not render a decision in this respect.
The Decision of the 16 1h High Criminal Court of Istanbul
41.
On 4 June 2012, UEFA was provided with the TFF Ethics Committee Report
published on 26 April2012.
42.
On 7 June 2012, the UEFA General Secretary issued a letter to the chairman of the
UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body (hereinafter: the "UEFA CDB") requesting it to
open disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbah9e.
43.
On 17 June 2012, an internal email was sent by a Legal Counsel of UEFA

Disciplinary Services to Mr David Casserly, an UEFA Disciplinary Inspector, to
which the letter of 7 June 2012 was attached. A carbon copy (cc) of this email was
sent to two email addresses fiom Fenerbah9e.
44.
On 18 June 2012, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector submitted a brief report to

Fenerbah9e and to UEFA Disciplinary services, whereby he concluded that in light of
the fact that the final reasoned decisions of the TFF Board of Appeals were not yet
provided, "no final decision may be issued by the [UEFA CDB] ( .. .)until the [UEFA
CDB] has had the opportunity to consider the final reasoned decisions of the TFF
Board ofAppeals".

Courl of Arbitration for Sporl
45.
On 20 June 2012, UEFA received copies of the final reasoned decisions of the TFF
Board of Appeals.
46.
Also on 20 June 2012, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector informed UEFA Disciplinary
Services of his opinion that given the "very large volume of documents to be analysed
and presented to the CDB" he was of the opinion that "it would appear that at its
meeting tomorrow, the CDB will not yet be in a position to issue a final decision as to
whether Fenerbah9e has been involved in match-fixing since April 2007". The UEFA
Disciplinary Inspector furthennore submitted that "pending a final determination of
that issue, Fenerbah9e should continue to be considered eligible for the UEFA
Champions League, as in the absence of a finding against the club, Fenerbah9e
continues to fulfil the relevant criteria for admission".
47.
On 21 June 2012, the UEFA CDB rendered a decision allowing the UEFA
Disciplinary Inspector and Fenerbahye to file additional written submissions and
confirmed that Fenerbah9e was eligible to participate in the UEFA Champions League
season 2012/2013 pending a final decision of the UEFA CDB on this matter.
48.
On 2 July 2012, the 16th High Criminal Coutt in Istanbul, Turkey, decided that a
criminal organisation had been formed under the leadership of Mr Aziz Ytldmm and
that match-fixing and incentive bonus activity by officials of Fenerbah9e had taken
place during 13 matches of the season 2010/2011. Of the 93 persons that were tried,
48 were convicted. Among the persons convicted were the following Fenerbah9e
officials:
1. Mr Aziz Ytldmm, President of Fenerbah9e, sentenced to two years and six
months for establishing a criminal organisation and sentenced to an additional
three years and nine months of imprisonment and to a fine of Turkish Lire
(hereinafter: "TRY'') 1,312,500 for committing the crime of match-fixing in
four matches and for committing the crime of incentive bonus in three
matches.
2. Mr Mehmet $ekip Mosturoglu, Vice-president of Fenerbahye, sentenced to one
year and three months of imprisonment because of being a member of a
criminal organisation and sentenced to an additional, and not suspended one
year, 10 months and 14 days of imprisonment for providing an incentive bonus
in order to influence the outright result of one match and of being involved in
match-fixing in order to influence the outright result in two matches.
3. Mr ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu, Board member of Fenerbah9e, sentenced to one
year and three months of imprisonment because of being a member of a
criminal organisation and sentenced to an additional, and not suspended one
year, 25 (sic) months and 15 days of imprisonment and a fine of TRY 900,000
for committing the crime of match-fixing in two matches and for committing
the crime of incentive bonus in three matches.
4. Mr Alaeddin Ytldmm, Board member of Fenerbahye, sentenced to one year
and six months of imprisonment (suspended for five years) because of being a
member of a criminal organisation and sentenced to an additional, and not
suspended one year, one month and 15 days of imprisonment and a TRY

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kullibli v. UEFA- Page 13
135,000 fine due to the fact that it was established that he conunitted the crime
of incentive bonus in one match.
5. Mr Cemil Turban, Manager of Fenerbah9e, sentenced to one year and three
months of imprisonment (suspended for five years) because of being a member
of a criminal organisation and sentenced to an additional, and not suspended
II months and 7 days of imprisomnent and a TRY 15,625 fine due to the fact
that it was established that he conunitted the crime of match-fixing in one
match.
6. Mr Tamer Yelkovan, Finance Director of Fenerbah9e, sentenced to one year

and three months of imprisonment (suspended for five years) because of being
a member of a criminal organisation and sentenced to an additional, and not
suspended one year and three months of imprisonment and a TRY 49,980 fine
for providing an incentive bonus in order to influence the outright result of one
match and of being involved in match-fixing in order to influence the outright
result in two matches.
49.
In respect of the match between Gen9lerbirligi and Fenerbah9e of 7 March 2011, the
16th High Criminal Court oflstanbul ruled as follows in respect of the individuals:
"C) Despite the fact that a civil lawsuit was initiated against the defendant Azjz
YILDJRJM with the demand of sentencing him with the crime offiaud due to the
fact that he conducted match-fixing and gave incentive bonus in the Turkish
Professional Super League in Manisaspor - Trabzonspor competition played on
21.02.2011, Fenerbahr;e - Kaszmpa~a competition played on 26.02.2011,
Bursaspor - jBB Spar competition played on 06.03.2011, Genr;lerbirligi Trabzonspor competition played on 20.03.2011 and Eskiehirspor- Fenerbahr;e
competition played on 09.04.2011; TO ABSOLVE him as per the article 22312-a
of CCP due to the fact that actions of match-fixing and incentive bonus were not
defined as a crime before the Law no. 6222, and that these actions were not
particularly regulated in the criminal law, in summmy, due to the fact that these
actions were not defined as a crime, 2
(. ..)
Despite the fact that a civil lawsuit was initiated against the defendant jLHAN
YUKSEL EKJ)jOGLU with the demand of sentencing him with the crime offiaud
due to the fact that he conducted match-fixing in the Turkish Professional Super
League in Manisaspor-Trabzonspor competition played on 21.02.2011,
Fenerbahr;e-Kasimpa:ja competition played on 26.02.2011, Bursaspor-jBB Spar
competition played on 06.03.2011, Genr;lerbirligi-Fenerbahr;e competition played
on 07.03.2011, Eski~ehirspor-Fenerbahr;e competition played on 09.04.2011,
Genr;lerbirligi-Trabzonspor competition played on 20.03.201I; TO ABSOLVE
2
Although the reasoning of the decision of the 16th High Criminal Court in Istanbul reflects that Mr Yildmm is
guilty of having attempted to fix the match between Gen9lerbirligi and Fenerbah9e, the Panel observes that the
operative part of the decision neither convicts Mr Yildmm for his involvement in this match, nor is Mr Yildmm
acquitted due to the fact that Law 6222 had not entered into force yet. It appears to the Panel that the 161h High
Criminal Comt in Istanbul omitted to mention this specific match in this paragraph of the operative part of the
decision, acquitting Mr Yildmm.
Tribunal Arbitral ciu Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar Kul!ibii v. UEFA- Page 14
him as per article 223/2-a of CCP due to the fact that actions of match-fixing and
incentive bonus were .not defined as a crime before the Law no. 6222, and that
these actions were not particularly regulated in the criminal law, in summmy, due
to the fact that these actions were not defined as a crime,
(. ..)
Despite the fact that a criminal case has been filed against the accused, TAMER
YELKOVAN, alleging that he had committed the crime offraud by involvement in
match fixing in Manisaspor-Trabzonspor football match played on 21.02.2011
and Fenerbahr;e-Kaszmpaijafootball match played on 26.02.2011, Genr;lerbirligiFenerbahr;e football match played on 07.03.2011, Genr;lerbirligi-Trabzonspor
football match played on 09. 04.2011 in the Turkish Professional Super League, he
shall be acquitted because the match fixing and incentive. bonus had not been
defined as an actual crime prior to the Law numbered 6222 and that this act is not
specially regulated in the penalty laws and briefly, the act charged is not defined
as a crime in the law pursuant to the article 22312-a of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, "
50.
Regarding the match between Fenerbah9e and IBB Spor of 1 May 2011, the 16th High
Criminal Coutt oflstanbul came to the following conclusion:
"a) TO SENTENCE Defendant Aziz YILDIRJM WITH 3 YEARS OF

IMPRISONMENT by divergence from the lower limit as per the article 11/1 of
Law no 6222 as amended by Law no 6259 - which is in compliance with his
actions and which is in favour of him in terms of all of its results - by taking
account of method of the crime and the significance and the value of the subject of
the crime due to the fact that it is established that AZiZ YILDIR1M committed the
crime of match-fixing in Fenerbahr;e - !BE Spar competition played on
01.05.2011, in Karabiik - Fenerbahr;e competition played on 08.05.2011,
Fenerbahr;e - Ankaragiicii competition played on 15.05.2011, in Sivasspor Fenerbahr;e competition played on 22.05.2011 in order to influence the match
results; and the crime of incentive bonus in Trabzonspor- Bursaspor competition
played on 17.04.2011, Eskiijehirspor - Trabzonspor competition played on
22.04.2011, and Trabzonspor- !BE Spar competition played on 15.05.2011 in
order to influence the match results in Turkish Professional Football League,
(. ..)
D) Despite the fact that a civil lawsuit was initiated against the defendant CEMiL
TURHAN with the demand of sentencing him due to match-fixing in Fenerbahr;eiBB Spar competition -played on 01.05.2011 in Turkish Professional Super
League- in order to influence that result of the competition, TO ABSOLVE him
as per article 223/2-e of CCP due to the fact that no precise, sufficient and
persuasive evidence - indicating that he needs to be sentenced for imputed
offences - could be acquired, and that it could not be established that the
defendant committed the charged crimes,
(...)
'Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport

D) Despite the fact that a civil lawsuit was initiated against the defendant jLHAN
YOKSEL EK$jOGLU with the demand of sentencing him due to the crime of
matchjixing via giving incentive bonus in Turkish Professional Super League in
Fenerbahr;e- jBB Spar competition played on 01.05.2011, TO ABSOLVE him as
per article 223/2-e of CCP due to the fact that no precise, sufficient and
persuasive evidence - indicating that he needs to be senctenced for imputed
offences - could be acquired, and that it could not be established that the
defendant committed the charged crimes,
(. ..)
a) Since the accused, TAMER YELKOVAN, has been proven guilty of the crimes,
incentive bonus in order to influence the outright result of EskiehirsporTrabzonspor football match played on 22. 04. 2011 and matchjixing in IBB SporFenerbahr;e football match played on 01.05.2011 and Sivasspor-Fenerbahr;e
football match played on 22.05.2011 in the Turkish Professional Super League, he
shall be SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT OF ONE YEAR AND SIX MONTHS
AND SUBJECT TO A JUDICIAL FINE OF TWO THOUSAND DAYS(. ..)"
51.
Regarding the match between Fenerbah9e and MKE Ankaragiicii of 15 May 2011, the
161h High Criminal Court of Istanbul came to the following conclusion:
"a) TO SENTENCE Defendant Aziz YILDIRIM WITH 3 YEARS OF
IMPRISONMENT by divergence fiom the lower limit as per the article 1111 of
Law no 6222 as amended by Law no 6259 - which is in compliance with his
the crime due to the fact that it is established that Azjz YILDIRIM committed the
crime of matchjixing in Fenerbahr;e - IBB Spar competition played on
01.05.2011, in Karabiik - Fenerbahr;e competition played on 08.05.2011,
Fenerbahr;e - Ankaragiicii competition played on 15.05.2011, in SivassporFenerbahr;e competition played on 22.05.2011 in order to influence the match
results; and the crime of incentive bonus in Trabzonspor - Bursaspor competition
played on 17.04.2011, Eskiehirspor - Trabzonspor competition played on
22.04.2011, and Trabzonspor -IBB Spar competition played on 15.05.2011 in
(. ..)
TO SENTENCE the defendant CEMjL TURBAN WITH ONE YEAR AND SIX
MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT and ONE THOUSAND DAYS OF PUNITIVE
FINE as per the article 11/1 of Law no 6222- as amended by the Law no 6259,
which is in compliance with his actions and which is in favour of him in terms of
all of its results - by taking account of method of the crime and the significance
and the value of the subject of the crime due to the fact that it is established that
he committed the crime of matchjixing in Ankaragiicii- Fenerbahr;e competition
played on 15/05/2011,
(. ..)

TO SENTENCE Defendant jLHAN YUKSEL EK/)jOGLU WITH I YEAR 8

MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT and 8000 DAYS OF PUNITIVE FINE by
divergence fiom the lower limit as per the article 1111 of Law no 6222 as
amended by Law no 6259- which is in compliance with his actions and which is
in favour of him in terms of all of its results - by taking account of method of the
crime and the significance and the value of the subject of the crime due to the fact
that it is established that jlhan Yiiksel Elcyioglu committed the crime of matchfixing in Trabzonspor - Bursaspor competition played on 17.04.20I1,
Esiki~ehirspor- Trabzonspor competition played on 22.04.201I, TrabzonsporjBB Spar competition played on I5.05.20ll, Fenerbaht;e - Ankaragiicii
competition played on 15.05.2011, Sivasspor- Fenerbaht;e competition played on
22.05.20ll in order to influence the match results in Turkish Professional
Football League,
(. ..)
The accused, MEHMET /)EIGP MOSTUROGLU has been proven guilty of
providing an incentive bonus in order to influence the outright result of
Eski~ehirspor-Trabzonspor match played on 22.04.201I and of being involved in
match fixing in order to influence the outright result of Karabiik-Fenerbaht;e
match played on 08.05.20I1 and Fenerbaht;e-Ankaragiicii match played on
I5.05.2011 in the Turkish Professional Super League, he shall be SENTENCED
TO IMPRISONMENT OF ONE YEAR AND SIX MONTHS AND SUBJECT TO A
PUNITIVE FINE OF TWO THOUSAND DAYS by divergence from the lower limit
upon discretion considering his manner of committing the crime and significance
and value of the subject of the crime as per the article 1111 due to the act (attempt
to do match fixing) requiring the severest punishment with reference to the article
I1/I 0 of the Law numbered 6222 which applies to this act and is in favour in
respect of all its consequences. "
52.
Regarding the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e of 22 May 2011, the 16'h
High Criminal Court oflstanbul came to the following conclusion:
"a) TO SENTENCE Defendant Aziz YILDIRIM WITH 3 YEARS OF

IMPRISONMENT by divergence from the lower limit as per the article 1III of
Law no 6222 as ainended by Law no 6259 - which is in compliance with his
the crime due to the fact that it is established that Azjz YILDIRIM committed the
crime of match-fixing in Fenerbaht;e - IBB Spar competition played on
OI.05.2011, in Karabiik - Fenerbaht;e competition played on 08.05.201J,
Fenerbaht;e - Ankaragiicii competition played on I5.05.20ll, in Sivasspor Fenerbaht;e competition played on 22. 05.2011 in order to influence the match
results; and the crime of incentive bonus in Trabzonspor - Bursaspor competition
played on I7.04.2011, Eski~ehirspor - Trabzonspor competition played on
22.04.2011, and Trabzonspor- IBB Spar competition played on 15.05.2011 in
(. ..)

TO SENTENCE Defendant iLHAN YUKSEL EK$iOGLU WITH I YEAR 8

MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT and 8000 DAYS OF PUNITIVE FINE by
divergence from the lower limit as per the article 1I/1 of Law no 6222 as
amended by Law no 6259- which is in compliance with his actions and which is
in favour of him in terms of all of its results - by taking account of method of the
crime and the significance and the value of the subject of the crime due to the fact
that it is established that ilhan Yiiksel Elcyioglu committed the crime of matchfixing in Trabzonspor - Bursaspor competition played on 17.04.2011,
Esiki:jehirspor - Trabzonspor competition played on 22.04.2011, TrabzonsporiBB Spar competition played on 15.05.201J, Fenerbahr;e - Ankaragiicii
competition played on 15.05.2011, Sivasspor- Fenerbahr;e competition played on
22.05.2011 in order to influence the match results in Turkish Professional
Football League,
(. ..)
a) Since the accused, TAMER YELKOVAN, has been proven guilty of the crimes,
incentive bonus in order to influence the outright result of Eski:jehirsporTrabzonspot football match played on 22.04.2011 and match:fixing in IBB SporFenerbaht;e football match played on 01.05.2011 and Sivasspor-Fenerbahr;e
football match played on 22.05.2011 in the Turkish Professional Super League, he
shall be SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT OF ONE YEAR AND SIX MONTHS
AND SUBJECT TO A JUDICIAL FINE OF TWO THOUSAND DAYS by
divergence fiom the lower limit upon discretion considering his manner of
committing the crime and the significance and value of the subject of the crime
and the severity of his offense based on his intention as per the article 1111 due to
his act requiring the severest punishment with reference to the article 11110 of the
Law numbered 6222 amended by the Law numbered 6259 which applies to his act
and is in favor of him with respect to all its consequences. "
F.
The Decision of the Control and Disciplinary Body ofUEFA
53.
On 6 November 2012, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector received translations of the

decision of the 16th High Criminal Court in Istanbul, Turkey.
54.
On 31 May 20!3, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector issued his report in respect of the
disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbah<;e.
55.
On 19 July 20!3, after the UEFA proceedings had already finished, the Turkish
Supreme Court prosecutor issued his report in respect of the appeals lodged by the
individuals, requesting the confirmation of all the convictions as pronounced by the
16th High Criminal Court in Istanbul, Turkey.On 10 June 2013, the UEFA Head of
Disciplinary and Integrity Services informed Fenerbah<;e of the instigation of
proceedings against it and submitted the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector's report dated
31 May 20!3 (hereinafter: the "UEFA Disciplinary Repmt").
56.
On 20 June 2013, Fenerbah<;e filed its response.
57.
On 22 June 20!3, the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body passed its decision
(hereinafter: the "UEFA CDB Decision"), with the following operative part:
'Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah<;e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 18
"To exclude Fenerbahr;e SK from participating in the next three (3) UEFA club
competitions for which they would qualify. Nevertheless, the third season is
deferred for a probationmy period offive years. "
58.
On 25 June 2013, the grounds of the UEFA CDB Decision were communicated to the
parties.
59.
In respect of the match between Gen<;lerbirligi and Fenerbah<;e of 7 March 2011, the
UEFA CDB considered it established that Fenerbah<;e had been involved in:
"influencing the result of the match Genr;lerbirligi vs. [Fenerbah<;e] of 7 March

2011, with in particular payments made to players ofGenr;lerbirligi;"
60.
In respect of the match between Fenerbah<;e and IBB Spor of 1 May 2011, the UEFA
CDB considered it established that Fenerbah<;e had been involved in:
"influencing the result of the matches [Fenerbah<;e] v. [IBB Spor] of 1 May 2011
(with in particular payments made to players of!BB Spar)"
61.
In respect of the match between Fenerbah<;e and MKE Anlcaragiicii of 15 May 2011,
the UEFA CDB considered it established that Fenerbah<;e had been involved in:
"influence the result of a match between MKE Ankaragiicii and [Fenerbah<;e] of

15 May 2011, with in particular direct contacts with players of MKE
Ankaragiicii; "
62.
In respect of the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbah<;e of22 May 2011, the UEFA
CDB considered it established that Fenerbah<;e had been involved in:
"influencing the result of the matches(.. .) Sivasspor vs. [Fenerbah<;e] of 22 May

2011 (with in particular payments offered and possibly made to a player of the
other team to play in favour of[Fenerbah<;e]."
G.
The Decision of the Appeals Body of UEFA
63.
On 26 June 2013, Fenerbah<;e submitted a declaration of intention to appeal against

the UEFA DCB Decision.
64.
On 28 June 2013, Fenerbah<;e requested a stay of the UEFA CDB Decision.
65.
On 5 July 2013, Fenerbah<;e submitted the grounds for its appeal and requested the
sanction imposed in the UEFA CDB Decision to be cancelled.
66.
On 8 July 2013, the UEFA Appeals Body rejected the application for a stay.
67.
On 9 July 2013, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector filed his reply to the appeal within
the deadline set by the Chairman of the UEFA Appeals Body, requesting that the
appeal be rejected and the costs charged accordingly.
68.
On 10 July 2013, the UEFA Appeals Body passed its decision (hereinafter: the
"Appealed Decision"), with, inter alia, the following operative part:

"1. The appeal lodged by Fenerbahr;e SKis partially admitted and the Control and
Disciplinary Body's decision of22 June 2013 is partially upheld.
2.
Fenerbahr;e SK is excluded from participating in the next two (2) UEFA club
competitions for which it would qualifY. (. .. )"
69.
On 15 July 2013, the grounds of the Appealed Decision were communicated to the
parties.
70.
In respect of the match between Genylerbirligi and Fenerbahye of 7 March 2011, the
UEFA Appeals Body concluded as follows:
"The Appeals Body is satisfied that the Executive Committee member of

Fenerbahr;e SK Mr Ek$ioglu had played a direct role in fixing the match
Genr;lerbirligi vs. Fenerbahr;e played on 7 March 2011 of the 2010/2011 Turkish
Super Lig. Numerous evidentiary elements support this conclusion, notably those
contained in the Police Digest, the Ethics committee report, the decision of the
TFF disciplinary bodies and the decision of the 161h High criminal court. "
71.
In respect of the match between Fenerbahye and IBB Spor of 1 May 2011, the UEFA
Appeals Body concluded as follows:
"In view of all the elements of the case file and having examined the Police digest
and the 161h High criminal court decision, the Appeals Body is satisfied that the
President of Fenerbahr;e SK, Mr Yzldmm, concluded match fixing activities in
regard to the match Fenerbahr;e vs. JBB Spor, played 1 May 2011."
72.
In respect of the match between Fenerbahye and MKE Ankaraglicli of 15 May 2011,
the UEFA Appeals Body concluded as follows:
"After examination [sic] all the elements of the case file, the Appeals Body is
satisfied that there was an attempt to fix the match between Fenerbahr;e and
Ankaragiigii [sic] played on 15 May 2011 of the 2010/2011 Turkish Super Lig.
Consequently, the Appeals Body believes that the President ofFenerbahr;e SK, Mr
Ylidmm, a Fenerbahr;e SK Executive Committee member Mr Ek$ioglu,
Fenerbahr;e SK Vice President Mr Mosturoglu and Youth Division Director Mr
Turhan, took an active part in these match-fixing activities. The evidence
submitted provided support to this conclusion of the Appeals Body, notably the
Police Digest, the Ethics committee report, the decision of the TFF disciplinary
bodies and the decision of the 16'h High criminal court ofIstanbul."
73.
In respect of the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbahye of22 May 2011, the UEFA
Appeals Body concluded as follows:
"After taking into account a variety of evidence resulting firstly from the Police
Digest and secondly from the 161h High criminal court decision, the Appeals Body
considers that it is established that the President of Fenerbahr;e SK, Mr Yzldmm,
and a Fenerbahr;e SK Executive Committee member, Mr Ek$ioglu, conducted
match-fixing in the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbahr;e played on 22 May
2011."
III.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
74.
On 16 July 2013, Fenerbahs:e filed a statement of appeal with the CAS Court Office.
The statement of appeal was directed at UEFA (as first respondent), Be~ikta~
Jimnastik Kuliibii (hereinafter: "Be~ikta~") (as second respondent) and Bursaspor
Kuliibii Dernegi (hereinafter: "Bursaspor") (as third respondent) and contained an
urgent application for a stay of the Appealed Decision. The Appellant nominated Mr
Ulrich Haas, Professor in Zurich, Switzerland, as arbitrator.
75.
On 17 July 2013, UEFA objected to Be~ikta~ and Bursaspor being called as

respondents in the present matter. UEFA did not object to the request for a stay of
execution of the Appealed Decision provided that an expedited procedural calendar is
agreed upon by CAS.
76.
On 18 July 2013, Bursaspor filed an answer to the Appellant's request for stay of the
Appealed Decision, concluding that such request must be rejected.
77.
Also on 18 July 2013, the Appellant agreed to the exclusion ofBe~ikta~ and Bursaspor
fiom this case and in fact withdrew, without prejudice, its appeal against these clubs.
The Appellant furthetmore infmmed CAS that the parties had agreed on a procedural
calendar.
78.
Also on 18 July 2013, the CAS Court Office acknowledged the Appellant's
withdrawal of its appeal against Be~ikta~ and Bursaspor and that the arbitration would
proceed with UEFA as the sole respondent. Furthetmore, in view of the parties'
agreement to an expedited procedural calendar, the CAS Court Office confirmed, on
behalf of the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, that the
Appealed Decision is stayed. 3 Furthermore, the CAS Court Office aclmowledged the
parties agreement to the following procedmal calendar, which was subsequently
implemented:
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahye Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 20
Appeal briefto be filed on 26 July 2013;

Answer to be filed on 9 August 2013;
Hearing to take place between 21 and 23 August 2013;
Operative part of the award to be rendered by 28 August 2013.
79.
Also on 18 July 2013, Bursaspor reiterated its objection to a stay of the proceedings.
80.
Also on 18 July 2013, the CAS Court Office informed Bursaspor, as indicated in its
previous letter of the same date, that it is no longer considered as a party to tlte present
proceedings. Furthermore, Bursaspor was informed that its answer to the Appellant's
request for a stay had been filed outside the deadline prescribed (18 July 2013 midday)
in the CAS letter of 17 July 2013 and is therefore deemed inadmissible. The CAS also
took into consideration that this is a spmis disciplinary case between the Appellant
and UEFA and that only the latter is interested in the stay of its decision.
Contrary to what was widely published in the press, CAS did not take a decision on the Appellant's application
for stay, the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division only confirmed the application for a stay
following UEFA's agreement thereto.

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Ku1libli v. UEFA- Page 21
81.
On 19 July 2013, Bursaspor filed a request for intervention in the present procedure
pursuant to Aliicle R41.3 and R41.4 of the Code of Spotis-related Arbitration
(hereinafter: the "CAS Code").
82.
On 22 July 2013, the Respondent nominated Mr Rui Botica Santos, attorney-at-law in

Lisbon, Potiugal, as arbitrator.
83.
On 26 July 2013, the Appellant filed its appeal brief. This document contained a
statement of the facts and legal arguments. The Appellant challenged the Appealed
Decision rendered by the UEFA Appeals Body on 10 July 2013, submitting the
following requests for relief:
"1. to annul the decision of the UEFA Appeals Body dated 10 July 2013 and
declare that no sanction shall be imposed on Fenerbah9e Spar KulUbii with
respect to the allegations of match-fixing in 2011 and of not properly
completing the 2011/12 UEFA Club Competitions Admission Criteria Form;
2.
alternatively, to annul the decision of the UEFA Appeals Body dated 10 July
2013 and refer the case back to the UEFA Appeals Body;
3.
alternatively, to suspend the present proceedings until 30 October 2013, when

the Turkish Supreme Court is expected to have issued a final decision on the
criminal proceedings;
4.
in any case, to order the Respondent to pay the entire costs of the present
arbitration, if any;
5.
in any case, to order the Respondent to pay the entire costs for the Appellant's
legal representation and assistance as well as other costs incurred by the
Appellant in connection with this arbitration, to be submitted by the Appellant
at a later stage of this proceedings.
84.
On 29 and 30 July 2013 respectively, the Appellant and the Respondent requested
Bursaspor' s request for intervention to be rejected.
85.
On 30 July 2013, pursuant to Aliicle R54 of the CAS Code, and on behalf of the
Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, the CAS Court Office
informed the pmiies that the Panel appointed to decide the present matter was
constituted by:
~
~
~
86.
Mr Manfred Nan, Attomey-at-law in Amhem, the Netherlands, as President;

Mr Ulrich Haas, Professor in Zurich, Switzerland; and
Mr Rui Botica Santos, Attomey-at-law in Lisbon, Potiugal, as arbitrators.
On 9 August 2013, the CAS Court Office informed Bursaspor that the Panel decided
to reject its request for intervention on the basis that, "in the specific circumstances of
this case, [Bursaspor] does not have a legal interest in the present matter which can
establish or justifY the intervention. This case is purely of a disciplinary nature
between the Appellant and UEFAfollowing match-fixing allegations and charges. In

fact, [Bursaspor] does not and cannot have any claim against one of the parties to the
proceedings in this respect. "
87.
Also on 9 August 2013, the CAS Court Office invited the pmiies to provisionally book
the dates of 21 August 2013 and 22 August 2013 in the moming for the hearing in the
present matter.
88.
Also on 9 August 2013, the Respondent filed its answer whereby it requested CAS to
decide the following:
"a. To dismiss the Appeal.

b.
To confirm the decision of the Appeals Body of UEFA and order that
Fenerbah9e Spar Kuliibii is excluded from participating in the next two (2)
UEFA club competitions for which it would otherwise be qualified,
commencing with the 2013/2014 competition.
c.
To award UEFA its costs of the proceedings.
d.
To charge any arbitration costs to Fenerbahr;e Spar Kuliibii. "
89.
On 14 August 2013, the Appellant requested the Panel to reschedule the hearing to be
held on 22 August 2013 (aftemoon) and on 23 August 2013 as the President of the
Appellant and 8 witnesses called by the Appellant would be unable to attend a hearing
on 21 August 2013 as the Appellant was scheduled to play against the English football
club Arsenal FC in the UEFA Chmnpions League Play-off in Istanbul on 21 August
2013, 20:45 (CET).
90.
Also on 14 August 2013, the CAS Court Office infmmed the pmiies that the Panel is
unavailable on 23 August 2013 and had therefore decided to hold the hearing on 21
and 22 August 2013 all days. In light of the fact that the Appellant called 55 witnesses
to be heard, the parties were infmmed that the moming of 21 August 2013 would be
reserved for the procedural aspects of the case and that the afternoon of 21 August and
22 August 2013 all day would be reserved for hearing the witnesses and the arguments
on the merits. In this respect, the parties were granted a deadline to file a hearing
schedule for the audition of the witnesses and closing submissions. In light of the
Appellant's request of the same day, the Panel considered that "the parties have
agreed to the expedited calendar and it is for the Appellant's President and Board
Members- as specified in its letter- to decide whether they wish to attend the hearing
or the football match. In respect of the witnesses, the Panel took into account the
information provided by the Appellant and confirms to be available to hear these
witnesses on 22 August 2013 in the afternoon. "
91.
On 16 August 2013, the Appellant submitted a request for evidentiary measures with
CAS pursuant to Article R44.3 of the CAS Code. In respect ofUEFA's allegation that
the Appellant violated article 5 of the UEFA DR 2008 by not properly completing the
UEFA 2011/2012 Admission Form, the Appellant requested UEFA to disclose the
UEFA Admission Criteria Fmms filled in by certain other clubs. If it would appear
that these UEFA Admission Criteria Forms me not filled in conectly, this would, in
the opinion of the Appellant, conoborate its allegation that UEFA, until the present

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kullibii v. UEFA- Page 23
case, was of the view that "it could not base a sanction on improperly completing of
an UEFA Admission Form before any public knowledge about any investigation
against the respective club and (ii) that UEFA by basing the imposed sanction of the
Appellant also on the Admission Form 20ll/12 violates the principle of equal
treatment".
92.
On 19 August 2013, UEFA infonned CAS that it did not object to the Appellant's
request for disclosure.
93.
Also on 19 August 2013, the Appellant provided CAS with a proposed hearing
schedule and a witness statement of Mr Ilhan Cavcav, President of the Turkish
football club Genylerbirligi. The Appellant also reduced the number of witnesses to be
heard at the hearing to 3 5.
94.
Also on 19 August 2013, UEFA objected to the hearing schedule proposed by the
Appellant and proposed an altemative hearing schedule.
95.
On 20 August 2013, UEFA provided CAS with an UEFA Admission Criteria Form
filled in by the Turkish football club Be~iktas on 9 May 2011. The form was duly
signed and did not disclose any infmmation about match-fixing. UEFA infmmed the
Appellant that the other requested documents did not exist, either because these clubs
did not fill in any UEF A Admission Criteria Form because this was not yet required
by UEFA before the 2009/2010 season, or because these clubs did not fill in any
UEFA Admission Criteria Form as the clubs did not qualifY for any UEFA club
competition in the relevant season.
96.
Also on 20 August 2013, the Appellant objected to the hearing schedule proposed by
UEFA and reduced the number of witnesses to be heard at the hearing to 32. The
Appellant fmthermore requested UEFA for three additional UEFA Admission Criteria
Forms and to produce these documents at the heating.
97.
On 21 and 22 August 2013, a hearing was held in Lausanne, Switzerland. At the outset
of the hearing both patties confitmed not to have any objections as to the constitution
and composition of the Panel. Both parties confirmed not to object to the jurisdiction
of CAS. The Respondent however objected to the jurisdiction of the UEFA CDB and
the Appeals Body ofUEFA.
98.
In addition to the Panel, Mr William Stemheimer, Managing Counsel & Head of

Arbitration to the CAS, and Mr Dennis Koolaard, Ad hoc Clerk, the following persons
attended the heating:
a) For the Appellant:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Mr Andreas Zagklis, Counsel;

Mr Christian Keidel, Counsel;
Mr Heiner Kahlert, Counsel;
Mr Deniz Tolga Ayti.ire, Counsel;
Mr Abdullah Kaya, Counsel;
Mr Ayhan <;opuroglu, Counsel;
Mr AbdmTahim Erol, Counsel;

8) Mr Ahmet Melih Turan, Counsel; and

9) Mr Aziz Ylldmm, President ofFenerbah9e
b) For the Respondent:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
99.
Dr Jean-Marc Reymond, Counsel;

Ms Delphine Rochat, Counsel;
Mr Adam Lewis QC, Counsel;
Mr Emilio Garcia Silvera, UEFA Head ofDisciplimuy and Integrity; and
Mr Miguel Lietard Femandez-Palacios, UEFA Disciplinary Inspector
The Panel heard evidence from the following persons in order of appearance:
1) Mr Ali Koy, fmmer Vice-President ofFenerbah9e;
2) Mr Nihat Ozdemir, former Vice-President ofFenerbahye;
3) Mr Haluk Burcuoglu, Law Professor in Turkey;
4) Mr Koksal Bayraktar, Criminal law Professor in Turkey;
5) Mr Melunet $ekip Mosturoglu, Vice-President ofFenerbahye;
6) Mr ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu, Board member of Fenerbahye;
7) Mr Tamer Yelkovan, Finance Director ofFenerbah9e;
8) Mr Dogan Ercan, Player agent;
9) Mr Melunet $en, fmmer football player of Fenerbahye;
I 0) Mr Murat Oztiirk, former goalkeeper of Fenerbah9e;
11) Mr YusufTuranh, Player agent;
12) Mr Melunet Ali Bilen, lawyer ofMr Akin;
13) Mr Ibrahim Akm, former football player of Istanbul Biiyiik~ehir
Belediyespor (hereinafter: "IBB Spor")
14) Mr Erdem Konyar, Player agent;
15) Mr Korean <;elilmy, fmmer goalkeeper of Sivasspor;
16) Mr Mecnun Otyalrmaz, President of Sivasspor;
17) Mr Fatih Akbaba, Player agent;
18) Mr Abdullah Kigilt, Board member of Fenerbahye;
19) Mr Murat Ozaydmh, fmmer Board member ofFenerbah9e; and
20) Mr Aziz Ytldmm, President ofFenerbahye
100. Although the Appellant at the commencement of the hearing intended to call13 other
witnesses (Mr Aziz Yrldmm is not regarded as a witness, but as a representative of the
Appellant) and arrangements were made by the Panel and CAS to hear them, during
the hearing the Appellant informed the Panel and the Respondent not to call these
witnesses.
101. At the occasion of the hearing, Fenerbahye provided certain additional witness
statements of persons that were not able to attend the hearing. At the same time,
UEFA provided the three additional UEFA Admission Criteria Forms that were
requested by the Appellant on 20 August 2013. All tluee fmms were signed by
representatives of the concerning club and neither of the forms indicated that the club
had been "directly and/or indirectly involved in any activity aimed at arranging or
influencing the outcome of a match at national or international level since 27 April
2007".
Tribunal Arbitral clu Sporl
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kultibti v. UEFA- Page 25
I 02. Each witness and expmt heard by the Panel was invited by its President to tell the truth
subject to the sanctions of petjury. Both parties and the Panel had the oppmtunity to
examine and cross-examine the witnesses/experts. The patties then had ample
oppmiunity to present their case, submit their atguments and answer the questions
posed by the Panel.
I 03. Before the hearing was concluded, both parties expressly stated that they did not have
any objection with the procedure and that their right to be heard had been respected.
The Appellant however stated that the expedited nature of the proceedings was not
voluntary and that this is why it requests the matter to be referred back to UEFA. In
this respect the Respondent stated that it was entirely satisfied, patticularly because
the parties had explicitly agreed on expedited proceedings.
I 04. The Panel confirms that it carefully heard and took into account in its discussion and
subsequent deliberations all of the submissions, evidence and arguments presented by
the parties, even if they have not been specifically summarized or refened to in the
present award.
105. On 26 August 2013, following an invitation thereto by the Panel, both patties filed
submissions on costs. Although invited thereto by the Panel, neither ofthe parties filed
comments in respect of each other's submissions on costs.
106. On 28 August 2013, the operative patt of the award was communicated to the patties,
dismissing the appeal.
IV.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
I 07. The following outline of the parties' positions is illustrative only and does not
necessarily encompass every contention put forward by the parties. However, the
Panel has carefully considered all the submissions made by the patties, even if there is
no specific reference to those submissions in the following summaries.
108. The submissions of the Appellant, in essence, may be summarized as follows:
>-
The Appellant purports that this appeal against a disciplinary sanction imposed
by UEF A is, first and foremost, about legal, not factual issues. This holds true
for two reasons: First, UEFA violated numerous basic and universally
recognized legal principles that would render any sanction by UEFA in this case
illegal even if UEFA's factual allegations underlying the sanction were true
(quod non). Second, for reasons that are evidently all but legal, UEFA decided to
conduct a hyper-extended disciplinary procedure which neither left room for
respecting some of the most basic procedural rights of the Appellant, nor left
time for fact finding and appreciation of evidence that would even come close to
doing justice to the factual complexity of the matter at hand. To put it simply,
the two instances guaranteed under the UEFA Statutes effectively did not take
place. This expedited CAS proceeding is not capable of, much less an
appropriate means of, making up the leeway wilfully created by UEFA.
Therefore, should CAS not endorse the Appellant's position that the Appellant
carmot be sanctioned in any event, it will have no choice but remit this case back

to UEFA for a proper disciplinary procedure that makes an effort of establishing

the facts of this complex case within an appropriate time fiame that also allows
for respecting the Appellant's rights.
>-
Notwithstanding the above, the Appellant wishes to make clear that it strongly
denies the factual allegations made by UEFA. These allegations may sound
plausible on the basis of the prejudicial statements and cherry-picked facts that
were the basis ofUEFA's decision to sanction the Appellant. However, as soon
as one makes the effmi of taking a closer look at all facts and evidence available,
including those exonerating the Appellant, it becomes obvious that the
allegations collapse like a house of cards. Unfortunately, UEFA did not make
this effort. It should be noted already at this point that UEFA's allegations, in
particular in the appealed decision, are fiequently so unspecific that it is unclear
who, according to UEFA, allegedly did what and at what time. This makes it
extremely difficult for the Appellant to even properly defend itself against the
allegations.
>-
The key arguments raised by the Appellant are the following:
>-
The Appellant maintains that the Appealed Decision is illegal because the UEFA
disciplinary bodies did not have any disciplinary competence in the present
matter. The match-fixing allegations are related exclusively to Turkish
championship games in the 2010/11 season and, thus, do not fall within the
disciplinary competence of UEFA pursuant to the UEFA regulations applicable
to the case at hand.
>-
UEFA was prevented from even opening the disciplinary procedure against the
Appellant under the principles of pacta sunt servanda and venire contra factum
proprium (or estoppel by waiver). UEFA's Secretary General had expressly
promised in writing that such proceedings would not be opened if the TFF
withdrew the Appellant from the 2011/12 UEFA Champions League, which the
TFF did. Thus, UEFA was obliged to stick with this promise, close the
disciplinary procedure and, a fortiori, not impose any further sanction on the
Appellant.
>-
The regulations invoked by the UEFA Appeals Body do not meet the
requirements of the legality principle (known also as nulla poena sine lege
scripta et certa), which must be respected by all Swiss associations. The
applicable UEFA regulations plainly do not provide the necessary clear and
ambiguous legal basis to sanction the alleged offences of the Appellant. Because
of the lack of a sufficient legal basis of the sanction imposed, the Appealed
Decision must be set aside.
>-
The Appealed Decision is illegal because it manifestly violates the basic legal
principle and human right of ne bis in idem on two accounts. The TFF decided to
exonerate the Appellant by a final and binding decision that must also be
respected by UEFA. Second, the principle is violated because the Appellant
already served a sanction when being excluded from the 201112012 Champions
League season, and cannot be declared ineligible from UEFA's competitions for
a second time two years later.

);.
The Appealed Decision is illegal because of a fundamental contradiction: the

UEFA CDB held in a separate and simultaneously rendered decision that a
supplementary report was needed to ascertain whether the five accused officials
of the Appellant had committed any offence. Hence, the UEFA CDB
acknowledged that no wrongdoing of the Appellant's individual officers could
be established on the basis of the facts presented to it thus far. Nevertheless, the
UEFA CDB imposed a sanction on the Appellant, holding it liable for the very
allegations that it considered unproven with respect to the individual officers.
);.
The Appealed Decision ignored res iudicata. This principle requires an

adjudicatory body to respect a final and binding decision. For an appellate body,
res iudicata means that it has to respect the first instance decision to the extent it
was not challenged. In the UEFA Disciplinary Report, the UEF A Disciplinary
Inspector alleged that officers of the Appellant were guilty of (attempted) fixing
13 matches. The UEFA CDB found the Appellant guilty of fixing only five of
these matches. The UEFA Disciplinary Inspector did not file a cross-appeal.
Under res iudicata, the UEFA Appeals Body had to respect the UEFA CDB
Decision with respect to the eight games for which no offence was established.
Instead, the UEFA Appeals Body found the Appellant guilty of fixing three
additional matches that were originally alleged in the UEFA Disciplinary
Repmi, but not established in the UEFA CDB Decision. Therefore, the Appealed
Decision violated res iudicata and must be set aside.
);.
The Appealed Decision violated several basic procedural rights that warrant
CAS to remit the proceedings back to UEFA Inter alia, the UEFA Appeals
Body allowed the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector to submit more than 900 pages
of new evidence less than 24 hours before the hearing of the UEFA Appeals
Body. The violations of the procedural rights committed carmot be cured by a de
novo review tlnough the CAS because (i) the Appellant would be wilfully
deprived by UEFA of two instances guaranteed under the UEFA Statutes (2010
and 2012), and (ii) under the time pressure uunecessari1y created by UEFA, the
file of the case which already contains more than 15.000 pages simply cannot be
reviewed de novo within an expedited proceeding. Without a valid reason,
UEFA submitting its UEFA Disciplinary Report worth more than 3.000 pages
regarding the disciplinary violations which allegedly took place two years ago
only six weeks before the decisive draw of the 2013/14 UEFA Champions
League.
);.
The merits of the case do not warrant the sanctions imposed. The Appellant is
not guilty of match-fixing and UEFA has ce1iainly failed to meet its burden of
proof. Even if the match-fixing allegations were conect (quod non), sanctioning
the Appellant under the regulations applicable to the present case would severely
violate the equality principle given that multiple other clubs did not receive such
sanction under the same rules. Moreover, even if the Appellant could be
sanctioned under the same rules (quod non), the UEFA Appeals Body would
have had to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to
determine an appropriate sanction. Instead, the UEFA Appeals Body satisfied
itself with two and a half lines of platitudes before aniving at a profoundly

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spor Kullibli v. UEFA- Page 28
disproportionate sanction, without even bothering to mention any of the

circumstances explained in detail by the Appellant.
)>
In addition to the abovementioned procedural and substantive flaws of the

Appealed Decision, there are numerous other circumstances which do not shed a
particularly favourable light on the UEFA proceedings and which support the
Appellant's position that it was effectively deprived of two instances. Even
though the undersigned representatives had no prior involvement with this case,
the UEFA CDB did not deem it necessary to grant even a short extension of the
10-day time limit to file the Response to the UEFA Disciplinary Report. Given
that the UEFA Disciplinary Repmi is based exclusively on third pmiy factfinding and appreciation of evidence, it is hard to find any explanation why the
UEFA Disciplinary Inspector waited until six weeks before the draw for the
2013/14 UEFA Champions League to submit the UEFA Disciplinary Repoti.
The appeal against the UEFA CDB decision not to extend the time limit was
decided upon only after the time limit had already passed, thus, leaving the
Appellant "in the dark" as to whether its Response had to be submitted within
the 10-day time-limit. Due to the inappropriately tight time schedule, the UEFA
CDB had less than 40 hours to consider the Response, which comprised 53
pages (primarily) on procedural issues, more than 800 pages on the merits and
more than 2000 pages of exhibits. Thus, it cmne as no surprise to the Appellant
that the chaitman of the UEFA CDB freely admitted at the hearing that he had
been incapable of reading even some of the most crucial documents. In violation
of its own rules, the UEFA Appeals Body allowed the UEFA Disciplinmy
Inspector to basically submit a new report less than 24 hours before the hearing.
This additional repmi contained over 900 pages of exhibits that were in the
UEFA Disciplinary Inspector's possession already when he filed his original
UEFA Disciplinary Report, most of them more than one year before the UEFA
Disciplinary Report was submitted. The UEFA Appeals Body further
compounded this violation by heavily relying on these exhibits in the Appealed
Decision even though the Appellant did not have an oppmiunity to properly
defend itself against this new report and objected to its admissibility.
)>
In view of all the above, the Appellant cannot help but wonder whether the
reasons behind the expedited and, at the same time, shockingly careless UEFA
procedure against it are of a purely legal nature. The Appellant now has to rely
on CAS for its first truly independent proceeding after having been denied the
two previous instances granted to it under the UEF A Statutes.
>-
In any event, the Appellant expressly reserves its right to seek further legal
action against the violation of some of its most basic legal rights.
109. The submissions of the Respondent, in essence, may be summmised as follows:
>-
UEFA is of the opinion that this case is about a European football club that in
order to have success has been engaged through its highest officials and for a
prolonged period of time in very serious, and very far-reaching, match-fixing
activities. Players of other clubs were bribed, or otherwise induced to not play
well. Criminal investigations have revealed the fixing of more than a dozen of
Tribun<Jl Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 29
matches, and even more matches influenced with so-called bonus payments. The
evidence before CAS, including the evidence collected by the Turkish state
authorities, reveals in a shocking way the illicit methods, the aim, and the
unlawful actions of the representatives of the Club involved.
~
Turkish national criminal comis have issued substantial jail convictions, because
they recognised that not only spotiing rules, but also criminal rules have been
seriously violated. The disciplinary bodies of the TFF have admitted impotiant
violations of domestic disciplinary rules and have issued sanctions respectively.
The decisions of UEFA at stake today before CAS have recognised that the
match-fixing activities of the Club and its Officials have violated UEFA rules
and must be sanctioned accordingly. Additionally, the UEFA bodies have
confitmed that the Club in order to get access to the UEF A competitions has
filed an UEFA Admission Form that was deliberately incomplete and inaccurate.
UEFA is clear of the view that the Appealed Decision must be confirmed in its
entirety, and that actually it would be fair to say that the sanctions issued by the
UEFA Appeals Body are not only justified and accurate, but even too lenient.
As both the UEFA CDB and UEFA Appeals Body have found, the Appellant
has in breach of miicle 5 UEFA DR 2008 been "directly and/or indirectly
involved, since the entry into force ofArt. 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes(.. .) in(.. .)
activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match at national or
international level" (in the words of atiicle 2.05 UEFA Champions League
Regulations 2011/12 (hereinafter: the "UCLR 2011/2012")). The Appellant and
its officials (for whose conduct it is responsible under atiicle 6 and/or 11 UEFA
DR 2008) have engaged in and/or attempted to engage in match-fixing and have
behaved in a way that violates not only the applicable disciplinary regulations
but also fundamental spotiing principles. Because oftheir involvement in matchfixing activities, senior Club officials have either criminal convictions imposed
by the Turkish High Criminal Comi and/or disciplinary sanctions imposed by
the TFF. In addition, the Supreme Comi Prosecutor has considered the officials'
appeals, and his position is that the convictions should be upheld. Futihermore,
the Club lied, or at best failed to provide a true and accurate account to UEFA
when it completed its Admission Fmm for the 2011/12 Chmnpions League,
since it failed to disclose involvement in match-fixing. UEFA submits that there
is copious evidence of a sustained pattern of match-fixing orchestrated by
officials at the highest level of the Appellant and that the Appellant, accordingly,
has violated applicable UEFA rules, lastly also by submitting a misleading
Admission Form.
Rather tellingly, the Appellant raises a series of technical procedural points in

the Appeal Brief, each of which is misconceived, inelevant and unsustainable
for the reasons described futiher below. What is more, the very fact that each of
these points is taken demonstrates the Club's utter lack of confidence in its case
on the substance.
Competence. The UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body were conect that
UEFA has competence to impose disciplinary measures when a club has fixed
Tribunal Arbiua] du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spor Kullibii v. UEFA- Page 30
national matches and not UEFA matches. Article 2.06 UCLR 2011112 provides
for disciplinary proceedings flowing fiom the satisfaction of the standard in
mticle 2.05 (in addition to an administrative decision of one season's
ineligibility). Atticle 2.05 of the UCLR 2011/2012 (and article 50(3) of the
UEFA Statutes) specifically state that the standard can be met in relation to "a
match at national or international level", and so the Club has expressly
contractually agreed to competence. If any fmther confirmation were needed, in
CAS 2011/A/2528 Olympiakos Volou c. UEFA, CAS already held that UEFA has
jurisdiction over match-fixing in national matches (in that case the club in
question was not only excluded from the UEFA Europa League but also subject
to fmther sanctions imposed by the disciplinary bodies ofUEFA).
)>
Binding contract of representation. The UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals
Body were correct that the UEF A letter of 23 August 2011 does not amount to a
binding contract of representation by the UEFA Administration that if the TFF
withdraws the Appellant for one season there would not be any disciplinary
action. The letter simply stated if the Appellant would not be withdrawn, the
"eventual sanction" in any disciplinary proceedings "is likely to be considerably
more severe", in the sense of more severe than it would have been if it were
withdrawn.
)>
Nulla poena sine lege. The UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body do not
violate this principle. CAS has long held that disciplinary procedures do not fall
to be measured by reference to criminal law standards: In this respect, it must be
noted that disciplinary rules enacted by sports authorities are private law (and
not criminal law) rules. In any event, the type of conduct for which the
Appellant has been sanctioned is clearly specified in article 2.05/2.06 of the
UCLR 2011/12, article 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes, and article 5(2)(a)(b)(d) and
(j) UEF A DR 2008.
)>
Ne bis in idem. The UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body do not violate this
principle. Again, CAS has held that criminal standards do not apply in
disciplinmy proceedings. In any event, the Appealed Decision of the UEFA
Appeals Body is the first decision of an UEFA body against the Appellant for
the match-fixing activities and the violation ofUEFA rules mentioned above. No
sanction was imposed by UEFA in 2011.
)>
Absence of a decision of UEFA against the Club's officials. The Appellant

argues that no sanction shall be taken against the Appellant itself since the
UEFA CDB has not decided to sanction the Club's officials. This argument is
wrong for many reasons. First, the Appellant seeks to mislead CAS: the UEFA
CDB, no doubt for reasons of efficiency and urgency linked with the on-going
European competitions, has decided to issue its decision on liability and sanction
against the Appellant as a first step, leaving over to a later stage its decision in
relation to the individual officials. Second, it is obvious and well recognised in
CAS jurisprudence, that a liability of a club or of a team does not require a
sanction of any individuals. Proceedings can be taken against a club alone on the
basis of what an official has done. The question is only whether the Appellant is
liable for match-fixing activities of its own officials. Finally, it makes no

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahve Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 31
sp01ting sense that disciplinary action cannot be taken against a club in relation
to imminent participation in the Champions League, on the basis that parallel
(less urgent) proceedings in relation to individuals have not been concluded.
>-
No violation of the res iudicata principle. The Appellant submits that the UEFA
Appeals Body did not have the right to find the Appellant guilty of fixing three
additional matches which were not established in the UEFA CDB Decision. This
argument is hopeless, because the UEFA CDB expressly mentioned in its
decision that the list of matches which were found to be fixed was not
exhaustive.
>-
Right to a fair hearing. As to the complaints about the faimess of the process
before the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body, it is long and wellestablished in CAS jurisprudence that even if there were any procedural failings
(which is denied) the de novo nature of CAS proceedings cures all procedural
defects in lower instances.
>-
Immediacy. The UEFA CDB decision and the Appealed Decision do not violate
this principle, relied upon by the Club in the context of its procedural complaint
that its right to a fair hearing has supposedly been breached. Again, criminal
standards do not apply. Fmthermore, under Swiss law as well as pursuant to the
applicable disciplinary rules, the disciplinary bodies are entitled to take into
account decisions of foreign criminal courts or national federations, and attach to
them the weight that the bodies consider appropriate in the circumstances.
>-
UEFA will demonstrate by reference to four example matches (in the interest of
efficiency and without prejudice to its continued reliance on all the matches
involved), why all four courts or tribunals and the UEFA CDB and the UEFA
Appeals Body were right to be comfortably satisfied that the evidence
demonstrated that the Appellant and its Officials were involved in match-fixing.
>-
Equality. The UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body do not violate this
principle. Equality of treatment is nothing to the point where different cases on
different facts at different times under different tules have been dealt with.
Equality consists of treating similar cases in a similar manner, not different cases
in a similar manner.
>-
Level of sporting sanction. There is nothing in the Appellant's points about

mitigation, or propmtionality of sanction. There is no conceivable basis on
which a two year ban from an international club competition (in addition to one
year already de facto served as a result of the withdrawal of the Club by the
TFF) is disproportionate given the specific facts and circumstances of this case,
in pmticular having regard to the duration and gravity of the offence and the
manner in which an entire "progrannne" of match-fixing was orchestrated by the
most senior officials of the Appellant. UEFA is determined to ensure that the
guilty are appropriately dealt with, so-called "big" clubs just as "small" clubs.
For this reason, the sanctions issued by the UEFA Appeals Body are appropriate,
just and well motivated - if not possibly too generous towards the Appellant.
The Appealed Decision must be confi1med in its entirety: not to do so would
send a tragic wrong message to the world of sport.

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar Ku1iibii v. UEFA- Page 32
V.
ADMISSIBILITY
110. The appeal was filed within the deadline often days set by mticle 62(3) of the UEFA
Statutes (version 2013). The appeal complied with all other requirements of Article
R48 of the CAS Code, including the payment ofthe CAS Court Office fees.
111. It follows that the appeal is admissible.
VI.
JURISDICTION
112. The jurisdiction of CAS, which is not disputed, derives from mticle 47 of the UEFA
DR (version 2008) as it detetmines that:
"The UEFA Statutes stipulate which decisions taken by disciplinary bodies may
be brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and under which
conditions. "
and atticle 62(1) of the UEFA Statutes which reads as follows:
"Any decision taken by a UEFA organ may be disputed exclusively before the
CAS in its capacity as an appeals arbitration body, to the exclusion of any
ordinary court or any other court of arbitration. "
113. The jurisdiction of CAS is futther confitmed by the Order of Procedure duly signed by
both parties.
114. It follows that CAS has jurisdiction to decide on the present dispute.
VII.
APPLICABLELAW
115. Fenerbah<;e maintains that, in principle, the UEFA DR (2008) me applicable to the
present case together with the UEFA Statutes (2010).
116. With respect to the procedural and organisational issues (i.e. time limits, admissibility
of evidence, composition of panels etc.), Fenerbah9e has already objected during the
hearing before the UEFA Appeals Body to the application of the UEFA DR (2013). In
fact, the procedural and organisational issues must be handled in accordance with the
UEFA DR (2012). This follows from the histmy of the case. The UEFA disciplinary
procedure against Fenerbalwe was initiated on the basis of a letter ofUEFA's General
Secretary to the chairman of the UEFA CDB dated 7 June 2012. Thus, Fenerbalt<;e
considers that it is undisputable that the UEFA disciplinary procedure was initiated
under the UEFA DR (2012).
117. UEFA maintains that so far as the substance is concerned, the UEFA Statutes (20 10)
and the UEFA DR (2008) (i.e. the UEFA DR in force at the time the disciplinmy
offences were committed) me applicable, and in relation to events in 201112012, the
UCLR for that season. So far as procedure is concerned, the UEFA DR (2013), which
cmne into effect on 1 June 2013 are applicable.

Court of Arbitration for Spmt
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs;e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 33
118. Article R58 of the CAS Code provides the following:

"The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and
the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice,
according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sportsrelated body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according
to the rules of law, the application of which the Panel deems appropriate. In the
latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision."
119. The Panel notes that miicle 64(1) of the UEFA Statutes (2010) stipulates the
following:
"These Statutes shall be governed in all respects by Swiss law. "
120. The parties thus agreed to the application of the various regulations ofUEFA, except
for the applicable version of the UEFA DR concerning procedural and organisational
issues. The subsidiary application of Swiss law is undisputed by the parties. The Panel
is therefore satisfied to accept the subsidiary application of Swiss law should the need
mise to fill a possible gap in the various regulations of FIFA.
121. In respect of the applicable version of the UEFA DR regarding procedural and
organisational issues, the Panel notes that the parties' positions differ in respect of the
moment UEFA instigated disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbahye. Fenerbahye
assetis that such proceedings commenced with the letter of the UEFA Secretary
General to the chairman of the UEFA CDB dated 7 June 2012, whereas UEFA avers
that the disciplinary proceedings commenced with the letter issued by the UEFA Head
of Disciplinary and Integrity Services dated 10 June 2013.
122. Although the Panel is unable to verify when the UEFA CDB exactly instigated
disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbahye officially, the Panel observes that
Fenerbahye became awme of such proceedings on 17 June 2012 at the latest. On that
date an internal email was sent by an UEFA Legal Counsel of UEFA Disciplinaty
Services to an UEFA Disciplinary Inspector to which the letter of 7 June 2012,
requesting the opening of disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbah9e was attached.
A cmbon copy (cc) of this email was sent to two email addresses ofFenerbahye.
123. In any event, by means of the UEFA decision dated 21 June 2012 where it was
decided that the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector and Fenerbahye were allowed to file
additional written submissions and Fenerbahye was declared eligible to participate in
the UEFA Champions League season 2012/2013 pending a final decision of the UEFA
CDB on this matter, Fenerbahye was certaiuly aware of the fact that disciplinary
proceedings were initiated.
124. Since the UEFA DR (2013) only entered into force on 1 June 2013 and UEFA
instigated the disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbahye when the UEFA DR (2012)
were in force, the Panel concludes that the UEFA DR (2012) are applicable
conceming the procedural and organisational issues.

VIII.
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Ku1iibii v. UEFA- Page 34
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
125. Before entering into the substance of the matter, the Panel wishes to dedicate some
words on the definition of"match-fixing". The Panel observes that both parties in their
submissions and during their pleadings continuously referred to "match-fixing" as the
offence that was allegedly committed by the Appellant.
126. In this respect, the parties drew some parallels with previous CAS awards concerning
match-fixing, i.e. Pobeda (CAS 2009/A/1920), Oriekhov (CAS 2010/A/2172) and
Meszaros & Poleksic (CAS 2010/A/2266). This Panel is however of the opinion that
there is a fundamental difference between the CAS jurisprudence referred to above
and the present case.
127. In the above-mentioned jurisprudence, third parties (i.e. criminal organisations)
attempted to influence the result of a match by inducing athletes, referees or clubs to
act in a cetiain way during a match. Athletes could be convinced to play badly in
exchange of a cetiain amount of money. This does not necessarily mean that athletes
were expected to make their team lose a specific match, it could also mean that a
bribed athlete was required to influence certain patis of a match (e.g. causing a corner
kick, receiving a red card, or, in the exan1ple of cricket: throwing a no-ball). This is
generally qualified as "spot-fixing". The third party fixing the match is not necessarily
interested in the outcome of the match, but is interested in certain events to occur on
which bets can be placed (e.g. betting that the first comer in the match will be for the
away team). Third parties can make large profits if bets me placed on an event that
finally indeed materializes.
128. This is however not the case in the present matter. As far as the Panel is aware, there
are no third parties involved in the present case that tried to make profit by influencing
the result of matches, or certain elements of matches. UEFA accuses the Appellant of
having influenced the outcome of numerous matches to its own benefit, i.e. in order to
win the Turkish Siiper Lig in the 2010/2011 season.
129. In the opinion of the Panel, the present case therefore concerns the more "classic"
match-fixing, as opposed to the "modem" match-fixing. Nevertheless, after having
considered the above, the Panel is satisfied that because the Appellant is accused of
having tried to directly or indirectly influence the outcome of football matches, matchfixing is not an inappropriate word and is in fact just as treacherous to the integrity of
sport, if not more, as match-fixing in its "modem" context.
IX.
MERITS
A.
The Main Issues
130. The Panel finds that the present dispute can roughly be divided in two patis. The first
pati concerns objections of Fenerbahye in respect of procedural and fonnal issues,
which possibly prevent the Panel from entering into the merits of the case. It flows
from the nature of the procedural and formal issues raised by Fenerbaltye, that only if
the Panel concludes that such procedural and formal issues are not of such a nature as
to obstmct the adjudication of the merits ofthe case, it will be necessary for the Panel

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahl'e Spor Kultibii v. UEFA- Page 35
to decide on the question whether in fact Fenerbah9e was engaged in match-fixing

activities and/or should be sanctioned for match-fixing activities.
131. In light of the above, the Panel will first adjudicate all the procedural and formal
objections raised by Fenerbah9e (a-f) before answering the question, if necessary,
whether Fenerbah9e was actually engaged in match-fixing activities (g) and
subsequently, if necessary, whether the sanction imposed by UEFA was proportionate
(h).
132. In view of the above, the main issues to be resolved by the Panel are:
1) Procedural and formal aspects:
a) Was the legal principle of res iudicata violated by UEFA?
b) Do the UEFA CDB Decision and the Appealed Decision violate the ne bis
in idem principle?
c) Was the UEFA CDB competent to instigate disciplinary proceedings
against Fenerbah9e and were the sanctions imposed in accordance with the
legality principle?
d) Was UEFA estopped from instigating disciplinary proceedings against
Fenerbah9e because of the UEFA General Secretary's letter dated 23
August 2011?
e) Can UEFA impose a sanction on Fenerbah9e even if it deems that the level
of information obtained in relation to the individuals is not sufficient to
issue a sanction against them yet?
f) Should the disciplinary proceedings be remitted back to UEFA due to a
violation of several procedmal rights?
2) Merits:
g) Do the merits of the case wa1rant disciplinary sanctions being imposed on
Fenerbah9e?
h) If so, was the sanction imposed on Fenerbah9e proportionate?
1. Procedural and formal aspects
a)
Was the legal principle of res iudicata violated by UEFA?

(i)
The position of the parties
133. Fenerbah9e maintains that UEFA violated the legal principle of res iudicata by
imposing a sanction based on the alleged fixing of eight matches; Gen9lerbirligi v.
Fenerbah9e (7 March 2011), Trabzonspor v. Bursaspor (17 April2011), Eski~ehirspor
v. Trabzonspor (22 April 2011), Fenerbah9e v. IBB Spor (1 May 2011), Karabiikspor
v. Fenerbah9e (8 May 2011), MKE Ankaragiicii v. Fenerbah9e (15 May 2011),
Trabzonspor v. IBB Spor (15 May 2011) and Sivasspor v. Fenerbah9e (22 May
2011)), even thougb the UEFA CDB did not find the Appellant guilty oftluee of these
matches (Trabzonspor v. Bursaspor (17 April2011), Eski~ehirspor v. Trabzonspor (22
Aplil2011) and Trabzonspor v. IBB Spor (15 May 2011) and this part of the UEFA
CDB Decision became final and binding when the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector failed
to (cross-) appeal that decision.

CAS
2013/N3256 Fenerbahsoe Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 36
134. On the basis of jurispmdence of CAS and legal literature, the Appellant submits that a
violation of res iudicata is confirmed by the so-called "triple identity test" according
to which the principle of res iudicata applies if the identity of the parties is the same,
as well as the subject of the matter and the legal grounds. The Appellant is of the
opinion that the prerequisites of this test are fulfilled and that it follows Ji'om article
58(4) of the UEFA DR (2013) 4 that the UEFA CDB Decision has, in fact, become
final and binding with respect to three of the games on which the Decision is based.
The UEFA CDB rendered its decision based on only five of the matches presented by
the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector. Thereby, the UEFA CDB implicitly decided that no
offence was established with respect to the other eight matches invoked by the UEFA
Disciplinmy Inspector. By including three of the eight matches that the UEFA CDB
had failed to establish an offence in its Decision, the UEFA Appeals Body judged
three new disciplinary offences within the meaning of article 58(5) of the UEFA DR
(2013). According to this provision, new offences may only be judged when they
come to light while the appeal proceedings are pending, however, this was clearly not
the case here.
135. UEFA relies on article 62 UEFA DR (2012) 5 in concluding that the UEFA Appeals
Body may either confirm, amend or lift the contested decision and that only the
punishment cmmot be increased and the UEFA Appeals Body in fact reduced the
sanction imposed by the UEFA CDB. In any case, the UEFA CDB found that the
Appellant was involved in influencing the result of five example matches and
expressly mentioned that the list of said matches was non-exhaustive. The UEFA
Appeals Body was hence not prevented from examining the Club's involvement in
further matches, as long as the "punishment" was not "increased", which was not the
case.
(ii) The findings of the Panel
136. As exmnined supra (cf. 115-124), the Panel finds that the UEFA DR (2012) is
applicable to the procedural and organisational issues of this case. The Panel notes that
article 62 of the UEFA DR (2012) provides, inter alia, the following:
"1. Within the jiamework of the appeal, the Appeals Body re-examines the case
both factually and legally.
2.
The appeal decision confirms, amends or lifts the contested decision.
3.
lf the accused is the only party to have lodged an appeal or if the disciplinary
inspector appeals in favour of the accused, the punishment cannot be
increased
4.
lf new disciplinary offinces come to light while appeal proceedings are

pending, they may be judged in the course of the same proceedings."
4
The Panel observes that contrary to the Appellant's position regarding the applicable version of the UEFA DR
in respect of the procedural and organizational issues, where the Appellant argued that the UEFA DR 2012
should be applied, now the Appellant submits that the UEFA DR 2013 must be applied.
5
The Panel observes that contrmy to UEFA's position in respect of the applicable version of the UEFA DR in
respect of the procedural and organizational issues, where UEFA argued that the UEFA DR 2013 should be
applied, now UEFA submits that the UEFA DR2012 must be applied.

Court of Arbitn1tion for Sport
137. The Panel observes that the UEFA CDB concluded in its decision that "(. ..) on the
basis of the evidence available, in particular, but not exhaustively, the [UEFA CDB]
considers established that Fenerbah9e has been involved in [influencing the results of
five further specified matches] and that the Appellant "fraudulently and intentionally
misled UEFA by completing and submitting (on 5 May 2011) to UEFA the [2011/2012
Admission Form], duly signed by Respondent, without mentioning any involvement in
any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match at a national or
international level since 27 April 2007". This decision was only challenged by the
Appellant. It is clear to the Panel that no new disciplinary offences carne to light
pending the disciplinary proceedings before UEFA. As such, article 62(4) of the
UEFA DR (2012) is inelevant.
138. The Panel observes that the procedural concept of res iudicata is defined in Swiss law.
(OBERHAMMER/NAEGELI, in Oberhamrner/Domej/Haas (Ed), commentary on Swiss
Civil Procedure, 2"d ed. 2014, Art. 236, no. 39 et seq.) According thereto res iudicata
has two elements:
1) the so-called "Sperrwirkung" (prohibition to deal with the matter = ne bis in
idem). The consequence of this effect is that if a matter (with res iudicata) is
brought again before the judge, the latter is not even allowed to look at it, but must
dismiss the matter (insofar) as inadmissible. It is for this reason- e.g.- that article
59(2) of the Swiss Federal Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter: the "CCP")
provides that a claim must be rejected as inadmissible, if the matter falls under res
iudicata.
2) the so-called "Bindungswirkung" (binding effect of the decision). According
thereto, the judge in a second procedure is bound to the outcome of the matter
decided in res iudicata. The binding effect is only of interest, if the judge asked
second has to deal with a preliminary question that has been decided finally by the
first judge.
139. The Panel finds that although the UEFA Appeals Body did not increase the sanction
imposed by the UEFA CDB, the findings on the merits of the UEFA Appeals Body
surpassed the findings on the merits of the UEFA CDB. Although this is strictly
speaking not prohibited by the UEFA DR (2012), the Panel finds that this is a
violation of the principle of res iudicata. The discretion of the UEFA Appeals Body to
re-examine the case from both a factual and a legal perspective (comparable to the de
novo competence of CAS pursuant to Atticle R57 of the CAS Code) neither allows the
UEFA Appeals Body to change the matter in dispute, nor is any justification given by
UEFA on the basis of which an exception should be made in the present case.
140. Hence, the Panel finds that the Appellant could rely on the findings of the UEFA
CDB, i.e. it could not reasonably be expected from the Appellant to defend itself
against general accusations in respect of matches that were not individually assessed
by the UEFA CDB. By discussing and specifically establishing that five matches had
been influenced, the UEFA CDB limited the scope of the proceedings to these five
matches. If five cases of match-fixing are the basis of the UEFA CDB Decision,
UEFA cannot, without appealing the decision of the UEFA CDB, introduce other
cases at the appeal stage before the UEFA Appeals Body. A general confirmation of

the UEFA CDB stating that this list of five matches is not exhaustive is of no avail in
this respect, also taking into account the Appellant's denial of all factual allegations.
141. The Panel thus adheres to the Appellant's position and finds that the scope of the
proceedings is limited to the findings of the UEFA CDB on the five matches and that
the UEFA Appeals Body was prevented from assessing any additional matches by the
"Sperrwirkung" attached to the principle of res iudicata.
142. Consequently, the Panel will limit itself to assessing only the five matches the
Appellant was convicted for in the UEFA CDB Decision, if necessary.
b) Do the UEFA CDB Decision mtd the Appealed Decision violate the ne bis in
idem principle?
(i)
14 3. The Appellant purpmts that UEFA violated the general legal principle of ne his in
idem on two accounts. First, the principle is allegedly violated because the TFF
acquitted the Appellant of the match-fixing allegations underlying the Appealed
Decision. Second, the principle is violated because the Appellant already served a
sanction when being excluded from the 2011/2012 Champions League season, and
cannot be declared ineligible fiom UEFA's competitions for a second time two years
later.
144. In this respect, the Appellant refers to a decision dated 2 August 2006 of the UEFA
Emergency Panel in respect of the Italian football club A C Milan where the following
was held:
"The question to what extent AC Milan was involved in the improper influencing
of the regular course of competition matches in the Italian domestic league was
examined by the competent disciplinary bodies of the FIGC. As a result, UEFA
does not have the disciplinary jurisdiction to examine the question whether or not
A C Milan has committed a disciplinary offence, neither would this be in line with
fundamental/ega! principles, such as 'ne bis in idem '. "
145. The Appellant submits that the exact same argument also applies to the case at hand.
The TFF PFDC and the TFF Board of Appeal decided to acquit the Appellant. It is
universally accepted that ne bis in idem not only prohibits a second sanction, but also
prohibits trying a person again for an offence in relation to which that person has been
acquitted already by a final decision. Hence, the Appellant finds that UEFA must
come to the same conclusion as it did with AC Milan (even though AC Milan was
sanctioned by the Italian Football Federation (hereinafter: the "FIGC") while the
Appellant was acquitted by the TFF).
146. The Appellant continues by arguing that UEFA cannot claim that its regulations have
since changed in a way that would allow UEF A to take a different position in the
present matter. The amendments in the different regulations of UEFA did not have any
consequence on UEFA's sanctioning powers in respect of national match-fixing cases.
The Appellant finds that this is supported by the introduction in 2013 of mticle 23(4)
in the UEFA DR (2013).

147. In respect of the second argument of the Appellant, based on which UEFA allegedly
violated the principle of ne bis in idem, the Appellant avers that because the Appellant
has already been banned fiom the 2011/2012 Champions League season, the period of
ineligibility imposed on the Appellant in the present proceedings qualifies as a second
sanction. In this respect the Appellant considers it to be itTelevant that the TFF
decided to withdraw it from the 2011/2012 Champions League season and not UEFA.
If it has been established that this exclusion can be qualified as a sanction, the
Appellant refers to two different tests utilised in CAS jurisprudence in order to
detennine whether the principle of ne bis in idem was violated. The Appellant
subsequently concludes that regardless of which of the two tests is applied, the only
possible conclusion is that the principle of ne bis in idem has been violated by UEFA.
148. The Appellant submits that atticle 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes is of no avail to UEFA
in this respect. In its Appealed Decision the UEFA Appeals Body argued that it flows
fiom this provision that there is a "two stage process". According to the Appellant,
this argument of UEFA is flawed. First, because the language of this provision does
not make clear that there is indeed a "two stage process". Second, from the UEFA
proceedings conceming the Greek club Olympialws Volou it derives that also UEFA
itself does not apply such "two stage process". There is not one UEFA case known to
the Appellant in which such "two stage process" has taken place.
149. Even if UEFA intended to allow a "two stage process", the Appellant submits that
such provision could certainly not ovenide the fundamental legal principle of ne bis in
idem. The whole idea of this principle is to protect those who are subject to an entity's
sanctioning powers against the misuse of those powers, which lies in the imposition of
multiple sanctions for the same offence. The Appellant illustrates this with the
following example: one should imagine the Swiss legislator enacting an article in the
Swiss Criminal Code saying that any penalty imposed is "subject to any further
penalties for the same offence". While UEFA is not the Swiss legislator and criminal
penalties are not disciplinary sanctions imposed by associations, the result must be the
same in both cases: the entity bound by ne bis in idem cannot abrogate this principle
by enacting a provision to that effect.
150. UEFA argues that the Appealed Decision does not violate the principle of ne his in
idem on either of the grounds put forward by the Appellant. Pursuant to jurispmdence
of the Swiss Federal Tribunal and by prevailing scholarly writings, the procedure
governing the adoption of spmts disciplinary sanctions is not subject to the procedural
guarantees existing in criminal law. Consequently, the Appellant cannot base its
appeal on an alleged infringement of the principle of ne his in idem. In the Valverde
decision of 3 January 2011 (SFT 4A_386/2010), the Swiss Federal Tribunal left the
question whether the ne his in idem principle was applicable to sports disciplinat'y
matters unanswered.
151. UEFA continues by arguing that even if one considers that the principle of ne his in
idem might be applied in disciplinary sports matters, its conditions are not fulfilled.
There is no infringement of the principle of ne his in idem if the two (or more)
measures aim at different goals. This is why e.g. "the prohibition of double
prosecution does not prevent trying the same person when the same behaviour may
have consequences that are not only criminal but also civil, administrative or

disciplinary" (SFT 4A_386/2010, 9.3.2, with fmther reference to: HoTTELIER,

Coi'Ulllentaire romand, Code de procedure penale Suisse, 2010, no 8 ad art. 11 CCP).
According to UEFA, the circumstances in the present case are in fact very similar to
the facts in the Valverde case where the Swiss Federal Tribunal considered that the
two-year ban from competitions organised by CONI or other Italian spmis federations
did not prevent CAS from basing a worldwide ban of two years against the Spanish
cyclist, on the same facts as relied upon by CONI. Indeed, the Swiss Federal Tribunal
considered that the decision taken by CONI was essentially a preventive measure that
principally sought to ensure that spmt competitions on Italian tenitory would not be
distmted by the involvement of people convicted of violating anti-doping rules. The
ban imposed on the Spanish cyclist by CONI was distinct from the ban imposed in the
CAS award, the latter measure being repressive in nature above all, to the extent that
its purpose is to issue a worldwide sanction against a professional spmtsman affiliated
to a sport federation. Like in the Valverde case, the decision of the TFF to withdraw
the Appellant from the 2011/2012 Champions League season had a clear preventive
goal, whereas the UEFA CDB's and UEFA Appeals Body's decisions have a clear
repressive purpose.
152. In addition, UEFA submits that it would be contrary to the clear wording of the rules
and to common sense to consider that the administrative imposition of one year
ineligibility pursuant to article 2.05 of the UCLR (2011/2012) would operate as a legal
bar to the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body in imposing the appropriate
sanction for very serious match-fixing cases in disciplinary proceedings which are
specifically contemplated in article 2.06 of the UCLR (2011/2012). It would be
nonsensical if no higher sanction could be imposed as a one-year period of
ineligibility.
153. UEFA further submits that the Appellant's interpretation of mticle 2.05 and 2.06 of
the UCLR (2011/2012) is contrary to the clear wording of the rules. The arguments of
the Appellant do not conespond to the recognised and stable practice of UEFA's
disciplinary bodies. After the FC Porto case (CAS 2008/A/1583-1584), UEFA was
careful in amending its rules so to introduce, with mticle 2.05 and 2.06 UCLR
(2011/2012), a clear "two step procedure", which in fact has been followed since. The
administrative measme of mticle 2.05 can be followed by a second decision, i.e. by
further disciplinary sanctions where the circumstances so require. The rules do not
foresee that the two elements (administrative measure and additional disciplinary
sanctions) must be combined in one single decision.
154. Even if the ne bis in idem principle would be applicable, UEFA asserts that
nevertheless the TFF's decision to withdraw the Appellant :fiDm the 201112012
Champions League season does not prevent UEFA to impose disciplinary sanctions on
the Appellant because (i) it was a decision of the TFF applying its own rules, not of
UEFA applying UEFA's rules; (ii) the TFF decided on the basis of its own statutory
right to nominate its own clubs to intemational competitions; (iii) the decision of the
TFF was not taken on the basis of article 2.05 UCLR (2011/2012) or any other
disciplinary ru1e of UEFA; (iv) the Appellant originally filed an appeal with CAS,
trying to argue that the withdrawal was a decision by UEFA, but finally withdrew its
appeal.
'Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar Kultibli v. UEFA- Page 41
155. UEFA finally maintains that the Appellant's reliance on the CAS Award pertaining to
the "Osaka rule" (CAS 201110/2422 USOC v. IOC) is of no avail to it. First, the issue
of whether or not the Appellant has violated UEFA's rules has neither been dealt with
by any disciplinary body of the TFF, nor by any other court. Second, the rules of
UEFA are clear, and have been enacted so by following the reasoning expressed by
CAS in the FC Porto case: in case of match-fixing, there is one automatic
administrative measure. If the circumstances so require, a disciplinary procedure is
opened and disciplinmy measures can be taken. The system is, therefore, a two-step
process, and by this exactly the opposite to the World Anti-Doping Code (hereinafter:
the "WADC"), where a one and single sanction is necessary to justify the equal
treatment of athletes and the fight against doping. What CAS has rightfully criticised
in CAS 2011/0/2422 is that by adding a sanction, the IOC was violating the "closed,
unified" sanctioning system of the W ADC, a code that expressly prohibits signatories
to alter the fiamework of the sanctions.

156. The Panel commences its analysis by observing that the principle of ne his in idem is
applicable to civil proceedings (OBERHAMMERINAEGELI, in Oberhammer!Domej!.Haas
(Ed), commentary on Swiss Civil Procedure, 2nd ed. 2014, Art. 236, no. 39 et seq.).
Therefore, the Panel agrees with the Appellant insofar it expresses the view that sports
disciplinary bodies ca1111ot tty a person or an entity again for an offence in relation to
which that person or entity has been acquitted already by a final decision of another
body based on the smne regulatory framework.
157. The Panel however finds that this is not the case here because the disciplinary bodies
of the TFF acquitted the Appellant on the basis of statutes and regulations of the TFF,
whereas UEFA applies its own statutes and regulations. The fact that the TFF
acquitted the Appellant does not necessarily mean that the Appellant did not violate
the regulations ofUEFA and vice versa.
158. The Panel understands that the Appellant is of the opinion that the declaration of
ineligibility of the Appellant by the TFF for the 2011/2012 Champions League season
was a sanction and that it is irrelevant for the application of the ne his in idem
principle whether such period of ineligibility was pronounced by the TFF or UEFA.
159. The Panel observes that in order for the sanction pronounced in the Appealed Decision
to be regarded as a violation of the principle of ne his in idem, the exclusion of the
Appellant from the 201112012 Champions League season must be regarded as a
sanction as well. The Panel understands that the parties' positions particularly differ in
respect of the nature of the decision of the TFF to withdraw the Appellant from the
2011/2012 Chmnpions League season, i.e. whether this decision was of a predominant
preventive nature or of a predominant punitive nature.
160. The Panel finds that the comparison drawn by the Appellant between the facts of the
present case and the decision of the UEFA Emergency Panel dated 2 August 2006
conceming AC Milan, are different. After the AC Milan decision was rendered, certain
amendments have been made to the Statutes and regulations of UEFA. As will be
determined below (cf. 190-216), the majority of the Panel finds that UEFA created
competence for itself to interfere in national match-fixing cases through a two-stage

process (through article 50(3) UEFA Statutes in conjunction with mticle 2.05 and 2.06
UCLR). This "two-stage process" therefore had already been enacted before the
introduction of article 23(4) in the UEFA DR (2013), which the majority of the Panel
considers to be a mere confirmation of UEFA's competence in this respect.
161. In respect of the alleged "two stage process", the following provisions are of particular
importance:
Article 50(3) UEFA Statutes (2010):
"The admission to a UEFA competition of a Member Association or club directly

or indirectly involved in any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the
outcome of a match at national or international level can be reji1sed with
immediate effect, without prejudice to any possible disciplinary measures. "
Article 2.05 UCLR (2011/2012):
"lf, on the basis of all the factual circumstances and information available to
UEFA, UEFA concludes to its comfortable satisfaction that a club has been
directly and/or indirectly involved, since the entry into force ofArticle 50(3) of the
UEFA Statutes, i.e. 27 April 2007, in any activity aimed at arranging or
influencing the outcome of a match at national or international level, UEFA will
declare such club ineligible to participate in the competition. Such ineligibility is
effective only for one football season. When taking its decision, UEFA can rely
on, but is not bound by, a decision of a national or international sporting body,
arbitral tribunal or state court. UEFA can refrain from declaring a club ineligible
to participate in the competition if UEFA is comfortably satisfied that the impact
of a decision taken in connection with the same factual circumstances by a
national or international sporting body, arbitral tribunal or state court has
already had the effect to prevent that club fi'om participating in a UEFA club
competition. "
Article 2.06 UCLR (2011/2012):
"In addition to the administrative measure of declaring a club ineligible, as

provided for in paragraph 2.05, the UEFA Organs for the Administration of
Justice can, if the circumstances so justifY, also take disciplinary measures in
accordance with the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations. "
162. The Panel is satisfied to accept that with the introduction of article 50(3) in the UEF A
Statutes and mticle 2.05 and 2.06 in the UCLR, UEFA created a "two-stage process".
The first stage (atticle 2.05) being an "administrative measure", pursuant to which a
minimum sanction would have to be imposed on the offender, by excluding it from
European competitions for one season. The second stage (article 2.06) being a
"disciplinary measure", which sanction would have to be imposed subsequent to the
"administrative measure" and is not restricted by a maximum length. The Panel finds
that this "two stage process" can be understood from article 50(3) of the UEFA
Statutes in conjunction with mticle 2.06 of the UCLR, patticularly because in the latter
provision reference is made to "administrative measure" and "disciplinary measure",
which, in the opinion of the Panel, one can only understand as to reveal UEFA's

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e SporKullibli v. UEFA- Page 43
intention to differentiate between these two types of measures. Also the words "in
addition to" seem to create a distinction between the two types of measures.
Nevetiheless, and for the avoidance of doubt, the Panel wishes to clarify that
irrespective of the wording used, proceedings initiated by UEFA on the basis of article
2.05 of the UCLR are disciplinary in nature, because the subject matter in such
proceedings is the imposition of a sanction.
163. The Panel finds that the application of such "two stage process", even if the one-year
period of ineligibility of the Appellant for UEFA competitions in the 2011/2012
season would not have been imposed by the TFF but by UEF A, which it was not,
would not violate the principle of ne his in idem. Both parties referred to jurisprudence
of CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal in order to conoborate their respective
opinions. The Panel adheres with the position put forward by UEFA because the Panel
finds that UEFA has a legitimate interest in applying a "two-stage process" in order to
exclude clubs fi'om its competitions with itmnediate effect, before being required to
evaluate the violations to its full extent.
164. In respect of the example described by the Appellant, the Panel finds that the
comparison does not hold. Although indeed a first sanction was imposed on the
Appellant based on atiicle 2.05 of the UCLR, this sanction was only a minimum
sanction of one season exclusion from European competitions. Therefore, based on the
wording of atiicle 2.06 of the UCLR (and subject to the conditions contained therein),
the Appellant could have been aware that an additional appropriate sanction could be
imposed on it in a second stage. The Patte! finds that if the rules provide for two steps
(a minimum and a fmal sanction), no issue of ne his in idem arises. If a comparison
would have to be made, the Panel finds that the following situation would better
illustrate the situation: if someone has a claim of CHF 10,000, he can first claim CHF
3,000 and then in a second procedure the remaining CHF 7,000. This does not change
the nature of the first CHF 3,000 and no issue ofne his in idem arises, since it is made
clear from the beginning that the single procedure is split in two steps.
165. Finally, the Panel finds that it must be taken into account that the Appellant, at least
indirectly by filling in the UEFA Admission Form in order to participate in the UEFA
Chatnpions League, agreed to be bound by the UCLR (2011/2012), including articles
2.05 and 2.06 and the "two-stage process" enshrined therein.
166. The present situation should be clearly distinguished from the CAS tuling on the socalled "Osaka mle" in CAS 2011/0/2422. There, an athlete was disciplinary
sanctioned and was additionally precluded from taking part in the next Olympics. The
Patte! adheres to the findings of the Panel in CAS 2011/0/2422, in concluding that the
exclusion of an athlete from the Olympics could be considered as an illegal additional
sanction. However, the main difference is that the World Anti-Doping Code
(hereinafter: the "WADC") provides for a rule that prohibits the imposition of
additional sanctions, whereas in the UEFA DR no rule exists that prevents UEFA from
splitting' the procedure in a minimum and - if the circumstances so justify - an
additional sanction. The Panel finds that the split in the proceedings can be justified by
UEFA's legitimate interest in being able to declare a club ineligible from taking pati
in its competitions immediately, without the need of first having to instigate complete
and comprehensive disciplinary proceedings against such club. The "administrative

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah\'e Spor Kullibli v. UEFA- Page 44
measure" is therefore not the final sanction, but only a preliminary minimum sanction
intended to protect the integrity of the competition. The present situation should
therefore be distinguished fiom the proceedings regarding the "Osaka rule".
167. Insofar as the Appellant intends to argue that UEFA would be prevented fiom
instigating disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant because the TFF has already
acquitted the Appellant in this respect, the Panel finds that this argument must be
dismissed. The disciplinary proceedings of the TFF PFDC were based on the intemal
regulations of the TFF and a possible sanction would only have had national
consequences. Disciplinary proceedings initiated by UEFA on the basis of article 2.06
of the UCLR are based on the intemal regulations of UEFA and a possible sanction
deriving from such proceedings only has European consequences. As such, the
"circles" of rights and duties are not identical. In this respect a comparison can be
made with the Valverde case (CAS 2007IA/1396 & 1402), because the panel in that
case considered that the domestic suspension imposed on the athlete by CONI was of
a different scope and nature as the worldwide suspension sought by WADA and the
UCI, which led the panel to the conclusion that the principle of ne his in idem was not
violated. Also in the present case, the Panel finds that the scope and nature of the
suspensions sought in the different disciplinary proceedings was different and as such
no violation of the ne his in idem principle occmTed.
168. Consequently, the Panel finds that UEFA has not violated the principle of ne his in
idem by instigating disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant and sanctioning it
with a two-year ban fiom taking part in UEFA competitions.
c)
Was the UEFA CDB competent to instigate disciplinmy proceedings against

Fenerbahre and were the sanctions imposed in accordance with the legality
principle?
(i) The position of the parties
169. The Appellant is of the opinion that UEFA cannot impose sanctions on it because
UEFA's competence is limited to European intemational club football, whereas the
allegations of match-fixing in the present case concem national matches. According to
the Appellant, the only exception in this respect is the one-year ban provided by article
2.05 of the UCLR (2011/2012).
170. The Appellant maintains that it is a general and well-la10wn principle in the
organisation of sport that the disciplinary competence of a sport organisation is limited
to competitions organised by that organisation (hereinafter: the "Competition-related
competence principle"). According to the Appellant, this Competition-related
competence principle was explicitly confirmed by UEFA itself in the AC Milan case.
AC Milan qualified for the 2006/2007 Champions League season due to its position in
the Serie A after the 2005/2006 season, even though the Italian Football Federation
had sanctioned the club for alleged match-fixing in the same season. Hence, UEFA
was confronted with the question whether AC Milan could be hindered from
participating in the 2006/2007 Champions League season considering the FIGC's
conclusion that AC Milan had been involved in match-fixing during the previous
season in the Serie A. In this respect, the UEFA Emergency Panel, in its decision
dated 2 August 2006, held the following:

"The question to what extent AC Milan was involved in the improper influencing
of the regular course of competition matches in the Italian domestic league was
examined by the competent disciplinary bodies of the FIGC. As a result, UEFA
does not have the disciplinary jurisdiction to examine the question whether or not
AC Milan has committed a disciplinary offence (. .. )"
171. The Appellant submits that the Competition-related competence principle is also
enshrined in other official UEFA documents, such as article 2(1 ), 60 and 74 of the
UEFA Statutes (2010). The Competition-related competence principle is also in line
with the principle of autonomy of associations. From the above, the Appellant draws
the conclusion that the disciplinary competence of international spmis federations for
disciplinary violations committed in national competitions can only derive from an
explicit provision granting such competence.
172. At the time of the alleged offence, UEFA did not have a provision in place similar to
article 70(2) and (3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which basically grants FIFA
disciplinary power to sanction serious infringements if "associations, corifederations
and other sports organizations fail to prosecute serious infringements or fail to
prosecute in compliance with the fundamental principles of law". Such provision was
only adopted by UEFA on 1 June 2013 -more than two years after the alleged matchfixing of the Appellant took place - in miicle 23(4) of the UEFA DR (2013).
Therefore, this rule does not apply to the case at hand.
173. The Appellant further submits that if it were guilty of match-fixing, quod non, it could
have relied on being sanctioned only by the TFF and, with respect to UEFA
competitions, only with the one-year ban provided under article 2.05 UCLR
(201112012).
174. Hence, the Appellant concludes that UEFA conducted disciplinary proceedings
against the Appellant even though the legal basis for such proceedings was adopted
more than two years after the alleged disciplinary offence. The UEFA could not.
sanction the Appellant simply because it did not like the TFF disciplinary decisions,
without having a clear and unambiguous authority to do so. UEFA's jurisdiction can
neither be derived from miicle 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes (2010), miicle 2.05 and
2.06 of the UCLR (2011/2012) or miicle 5 of the UEFA DR (2008).
175. The Appellant draws the attention of the Panel to the jurisprudence of UEFA's
disciplinary bodies and submits that in cases conceming national match-fixing UEFA
never applied atiicle 5 of the UEFA DR in such cases (FC Porto, FC Karpaty Lviv
and FC Metalist Kharkiv), although article 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes and article
2.05 and 2.06 of the UCLR were already enacted. In contrast thereto, whenever the
accusation concemed match-fixing that had occurred in respect to UEFA competitions
(FK Pobeda and Oriekhov), UEFA did apply article 5 of the UEFA DR. The only
exception is the case conceming Olympiakos Volou, where UEFA enoneously mixed
the eligibility rules with disciplinary proceedings pursuant to article 5 UEFA DR. In
respect of this particular case, the Appellant submits that no conclusions should be
drawn from this decision because UEFA did not discuss the competence for
sanctioning at all.

176. Under the chapter in its appeal brief related to the question whether UEF A had a basis
to instigate disciplinary proceedings, the Appellant submits that UEFA erroneously
found that the Appellant violated article 5 UEFA DR (2008). First, there is no legal
basis, much less a clear and unambiguous one, with respect to improperly completing
a fonn. Likewise, the legal basis invoked for match-fixing is by far too unspecific to
serve as a legal basis for the sanctions imposed.
177. In this respect, the Appellant maintains that in both criminal law as well as
administrative law, the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege scripta et certa principle
is applicable, i.e. an association may not impose any kind of sanction unless there is an
express provision in the statutes of that association describing in sufficient clarity and
specificity, not only the misconduct but also the applicable sanction.
178. In respect of the improper completion of the UEFA Admission Form, the Appellant
assetis that contending that this is a violation of article 5 UEFA DR, and even a
"clear" one, is completely untenable. It seems superfluous to the Appellant to even
state that atiicle 5 UEFA DR (2008) is not a provision that clearly and unambiguously
specifically incriminates the improper completion of a form. Furthermore, not having
confessed to an offence is certainly not a further ground for sanctions in addition to
the offence not confessed to. In this respect, the Appellant also maintains that there are
no decisions known in which not mentioning match-fixing allegations in the UEFA
Admission Form was seen as an offence in addition to the initial offence of matchfixing itself.
179. Conceming the alleged offence of match-fixing itself, the Appellant purpmis that there
is no unambiguous provision which provides for a specific linlc between a specific
offence of match-fixing and a specific sanction. The UEF A Statutes do not contain
any specific provision stipulating that match-fixing is an offence.
180. UEFA denies that there was any lack of competence for the UEFA CDB and the
UEFA Appeals Body. UEFA pmports that it is not only against common sense to
suppose that a club can cheat as much as it wants in its own country, but that UEFA
would have no ability to protect its own competitions by excluding the club.
Applicable rules as well as recent CAS jurisprudence confitm that UEFA has the
power to sanction a club in circumstances like those of the present case.
181. UEFA submits that article 2.05 and 2.06 of the UCLR and article 50(3) of the UEFA
Statutes are clear. Article 2.05 UCLR (2011/2012) makes it possible for UEFA to
open disciplinary proceedings if the criteria enshrined in such provision are complied
with, which could lead to an initial administrative decision rendering a club ineligible
for one season. The standard for such measure to be taken is that UEFA must be
comfortably satisfied that the club has had the requisite involvement in relation to "a
match at national or international level". Such involvement in either type of match
consequently puts a club in breach of atiicle 5 DR (2008).
182. UEFA finds that the Appellant's contention that atiicle 2.06 UCLR (2011/2012)
cannot be read as extending to national matches is simply wrong on the face of the
explicit and clear wording of the provision. It is clear that the disciplinary proceedings
from article 2.06 flow on fiom the atiicle 2.05 provision, and relate to exactly the
same behaviour, provable by reference to the same evidence. The word "possible" in

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahsoe Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 47
article 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes means possible in the sense that the disciplinary
measures may happen, and the requirement in article 2.06 that circumstances must
justif'y such measures related to the factual circumstances of the offences. Neither
fmm of words limits the disciplinary proceedings to international matches.
183. According to UEFA, article 5 of the UEFA DR (2008) does not confine the obligation
on a club to comply with the principles of loyalty, integrity and spmtsmanship to
UEFA matches. UEFA has a legitimate interest to have cheating clubs not admitted to
its competitions, inespective of where they have cheated. Match-fixing of matches
played in the national competition of European associations in membership of UEFA
is plainly "a question of European football" because it relates to football played in
Europe.
184. UEFA further submits that the introduction of atiicle 23(4) in the UEFA DR (2013)
does not mean that the already existing jurisprudence of UEFA, which is confi1med by
CAS, to declare ineligible to its own international competition and to take additional
disciplinary measures for match-fixing in national or international matches is in any
form limited. UEFA had jurisdiction in such cases, and still has. The jurisprudence of
CAS refened to by UEFA is a decision conceming the Greek club Olympiakos Volou
(CAS 2011/A/2528). In this matter CAS upheld a decision of UEFA where both
mticle 2.05 UCLR (201112012) was applied and additional disciplinary measures were
imposed pursuant to mticle 2.06 UCLR (2011/2012) following the fixing of a national
match. 6 The cases referred to by the Appellant (AC Milan, FC Porto) predated the
introduction of article 2.05/2.06 UCLR (2011/2012) and as such carnwt be relied
upon.
i.
Does article 2.06 UCLR require that article 2.05 was previously applied?
185. The Panel will first assess whether the imposition of a period of ineligibility on a club
by UEFA pursuant to article 2.05 UCLR (2011/2012) is a conditio sine qua non for
disciplinary proceedings to be instigated on the basis of mticle 2.06 UCLR
(2011/2012). If this were true, the fact that the TFF and not UEFA withdrew the
Appellant from the 2011/2012 Chatnpions League season, would render the UEFA
decisions invalid.
186. The Panel observes that article 2.05 of the UCLR (2011/2012) stipulates, inter alia,
the following:
"(. ..) UEFA can refrain fl-am declaring a club ineligible to participate in the
competition if UEFA is conifortably satisfied that the impact of a decision taken in
connection with the same factual circumstances by a national or international
sporting body, arbitral tribunal or state court has already had the effect to
prevent that club jiom participating in a UEFA club competition. "
The Panel observes that UEFA did not sanction Olympiakos Volou on the basis of article 2.05 and 2.06 of the
UCLR, but on the basis ofatticle 2.08 and 2.09 of the UEFA Europa League Regulations (UELR).

187. The Panel finds it rather logical that UEFA does not instigate proceedings against a
club oli the basis of article 2.05 of the UCLR if a national sporting body (or other
body) has already taken a decision to the same effect, i.e. imposing a one-year period
of ineligibility for UEFA competitions. This should however not prevent UEFA from
instigating further disciplinary measures on the basis of atticle 2.06 of the UCLR
against such club if this is deemed necessary based on the particular circumstances of
the case.
188. Applying the above general findings to the facts of this particular case, the Panel finds
that the withdrawal of the Appellant by the TFF shall be regarded as the imposition of
a period of ineligibility equal to a period of ineligibility pronounced by UEFA on the
basis of article 2.05 UCLR. In this respect, the Panel thus finds it irrelevant for this
purpose which entity finally imposed such period of ineligibility, as atticle 2.05 UCLR
puts both options at the same "level". Neither of these options excludes the possibility
of further disciplinary proceedings to be instigated against the club. To the contrat-y,
this possibility is specifically provided for in article 2.06 UCLR.
189. With reference to the words "[i]n addition to the administrative measure", the Panel
considers it to be necessary for a period of ineligibility to have been imposed on a club
before or together with a disciplinary measure. The Panel thus comes to the conclusion
that UEFA was not prevented from instigating disciplinary proceedings against the
Appellant because an "administrative measure" equal to the one-year period of
ineligibility pursuant to article 2.05 UCLR was imposed. In this respect, UEFA was
thus not prevented from instigating disciplinary proceedings on the basis of article
2.06 of the UCLR.
ii.
Is there a sufficient legal basis for the disciplinary measure?
190. According to Swiss law (and standing CAS jurispmdence) there must be a sufficiently
clear legal basis for a disciplinary measure to be imposed (CAS 2009/A/1823, 9.5;
CAS 2012/A/2912, 100). It follows from this requirement that there must be a clear
and unambiguous legal basis for the sanction issued by UEFA.
191. In this respect, the Panel adheres to the overview on this issue provided by the CAS
panel in CAS 20 IllA/2612, I 03, which was also recalled by the Appellant:
"According to Swiss association law a federation may base a disciplinary

measure against a (direct or indirect) member only on provisions that provide a
clear and unambiguous authority to do so (cf BSK-ZGBIHEINIIScHERRER, 4 1h ed
2010, Art. 70 no. 22; SCHERRERILUDWIG, Sportrecht, 2, Auf!. 2010, S. 303; see
also BK-ZGB/RIEMER, 1990, Art. 70 no. 210; HEINIIPORTMANN/SEEMANN,
Grundriss Vereinsrecht, 2009, no. 265). This principle is also part of general
considerations of sports law that have been taken into account by CAS Panels in
the past irrespective of the (subsidiarily) applicable laws to the merits (cf CAS
94/129, in Reeb (Ed.) Digest of CAS Awards I 1986-1998, p. 187, 194 seq.;
2000/010 in Reeb (Ed.) Digest of CAS Awards II 1998-2000, 2002, p. 658, 663
seq.; 98/218, in Reeb (Ed.) Digest of CAS Awards II 1998-2000, 2002, p. 325, 328
seq.;
2006/A/1041,
no.
7.1.1
et seq.;
see also FOSTER,
in
Blackshaw!Siekmann/Soek (Ed) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984-2004,
2006, p. 420, 427; RIGOZZI, L 'arbitrage international en matiere de sport, 2005,

no. 1272, 1277). In particular in CAS 94/129 (no. 30, 34) the Panel stated as
follows:
"Any legal regime should seek to enable its subjects to assess the consequences of
their actions ... ". Furthermore the Panel stated that while "the fight against
doping is arduous, and .. . may require strict rules, .. . the rule-makers and the
rule-appliers must begin by beings strict with themselves. ""
192. Legal certainty requires, inter alia, that the applicable provision (in the case at hand
article 2.06 of the UCLR) is sufficiently clear as to its material aud territorial scope of
application.
193. Tuming its attention to the material scope of application of article 2.06 UCLR, the
Panel has no doubt in concluding that miicle 5(1) in conjunction with mticle 5(2)(a) of
the UEFA DR (2008) to which miicle 2.06 UCLR refers, in principle, fonn a
sufficient legal basis for sanctioning the offence of match-fixing and measures to be
taken against the Appellant by UEFA. These provisions read as follows:
"1. Member associations, clubs, as well as their players, officials and members,
shall conduct themselves according to the principles of loyalty, integrity and
sportsmanship.
2.
For example, a breach of these principles is committed by anyone:

a)
who engages in or attempts to engage in active or passive bribery and/or

corruption; "
194. On the basis of atiicle 6(1) aud mticle ll(l)(a) of the UEFA DR (2008) the Appellant
can be held responsible and can be sanctioned for disciplinary infringements of its
officials. The relevant provisions respectively determine the following:
"1. Member associations and clubs are responsible for the conduct of their
players, officials, members, supporters and any other persons exercising a
function at a match on behalf of the association or club. "
"1. Disciplinary measures provided for in Articles 14 and 15 of the present

regulations may be taken against member associations or clubs if
a)
a team, player, official or member is in breach of Article 5 of the present

regulations; "
195. As such, the Panel has no hesitation that match-fixing is au offence that can be
sanctioned on the basis of the UEFA DR (2008).
196. What remains to be answered is, thus, whether mticle 2.06 of the UCLR (and the
provisions refened to therein) is a sufficient legal basis also with respect to the
territorial scope of application, i.e. whether miicle 2.06 UCLR (in conjunction with
miicle 5(1)(a) of the UEFA DR (2008)) is limited to match-fixing with regard to
UEFA matches or whether it also extends to national match-fixing cases.
Tribunal Arbitnil du Sport

197. The Panel observes that article 2.06 of the UCLR (2011/2012) detetmines the
following:
"In addition to the administrative measure of declaring a club ineligible, as

provided for in paragraph 2.05, the UEFA Organs for the Administration of
Justice can, if the circumstances so justifY, also take disciplinary measures in
accordance with the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations. "
198. The Panel observes that it remains undisputed between the patties that atticle 2.05 of
the UCLR (201112012) provides competence to UEFA in national match-fixing cases.
Where article 5(1)(a) of the UEFA DR (2008) would normally only apply to
competitions organised by UEFA, by means of atticle 2.05 of the UCLR (2011/2012)
the tenitorial scope of this provision is extended to domestic cases. This does not
mean that UEFA has a carte blanche in prosecuting clubs for national match-fixing
violations. Competence in respect of national match-fixing is provided by the UCLR
(and the UEFA Europa League Regulations - hereinafter: the "UELR"). Thus,
UEFA's competence is restricted to clubs that are subjected to these UCLR (and the
UELR).
199. The majority of the Panel is of the opinion that by means of atticle 2.06 of the UCLR
UEFA's competence for the imposition of "administrative measures" in national
match-fixing cases pursuant to article 2.05 of the UCLR is extended to the imposition
of disciplinary measures pursuant to article 2.06 UCLR, i.e. the extension of the
tetTitorial scope of atticle 5 of the UEFA DR (2008) is maintained.
200. The majority of the Panel finds that if this were to be interpreted any different, this
would lead to a situation where a club that is clearly involved in national match-fixing
and that qualifies for UEFA competitions, UEFA would only be entitled to issue the
minimum sanction (according to article 2.05 UCLR), not however a fmther sanction
(because atticle 2.06 ofthe UCLR would not be applicable). The majority of the Panel
deems a one-year period of ineligibility to be rather shott for a severe offence such as
match-fixing and on this basis the majority of the Panel concludes that this could not
have been the intention ofUEFA in drawing up article 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes and
2.05 and 2.06 of the UCLR.
201. The CAS panel in the matter pettaining to the Greek club Olympiakos Volou
appmently was of the same opinion as it upheld the imposition of a one-year period of
ineligibility from European competitions pursuant to atticle 2.08 of the UELR (the
equivalent to article 2.05 of the UCLR) and additionally, the exclusion of the club
from participating in the next three UEF A club competitions for which it would
qualify on the basis of atticle 2.09 of the UELR (equivalent to atticle 2.06 of the
UCLR). This sanction was deferred for a probationary period of five years. UEFA and
CAS thus combined an "administrative measure" with a "disciplinary measure" in a
national match-fixing case and apparently had no problem with UEFA's competence
in imposing a disciplinary sanction on a club for match-fixing in a national
competition. Although the CAS panel in Olympiakos Volou did not specifically
address this issue in its award, from the fact that a sanction was finally imposed, the
majority of the Panel deduces that the other CAS panel came to the conclusion that it
was competent on the basis of identical provisions as in the matter at hand.
T'ribunal Arbitral clu Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Knliibii v. UEFA- Page 51
202. A difference between the case of Olympiakos Volou and the present matter is that in
Olympiakos Volou the "administrative measme" and the "disciplinary measure" were
pronounced in the same disciplinary proceedings, whereas in the present proceedings
the so-called "two stage process" is applied. The Panel finds that the mere fact that the
TFF withdrew the Appellant from the 2011/2012 UEFA Champions League season
should not withhold UEFA from imposing a sanction if it would otherwise have
imposed such sanction together with the one-year of ineligibility.
203. The fact that in the matter pertaining to Olympiakos Volou, UEFA decided to combine
the "administrative measure" and the "disciplinary measme" in one disciplinary
proceeding does, in the opinion of the majority of the Panel, not mean that this should
always be the case, subject to the criteria in article 2.06 UCLR. The Panel finds that
UEFA was perfectly entitled to bifurcate the disciplinary proceedings against the
Appellant. The bifurcation of the proceedings regarding the "administrative measme"
and the proceedings in respect of the "disciplinary measure" can be justified by the
necessity of having to act quicldy in respect of the "administrative measme" in order
to protect the integrity of the competition, while the imposition of the final and
appropriate "disciplinary measme" might require a more comprehensive evaluation of
the case.
204. During the hearing the parties were in dispute over what weight should be attributed to
the fact that in 2013 UEFA amended atiicle 23(4) of the UEFA DR (2013). The Panel
observes that this provision determines the following:
"The Control and Disciplinary Body also has jurisdiction in the event of a UEFA
member association and/or its members failing to prosecute, or prosecuting in an
inappropriate manner, a serious violation of the UEFA statutory objectives. "
205. The parties' positions differ in respect of the meaning of this provision and what
UEFA intended to accomplish with it.
206. On 23 May 2013, a press release was communicated by UEFA, which reads, inter
alia, as follows:
"With respect to match-fixing, additional power has been granted to the UEFA
disciplinary bodies, which enables them to act if a UEFA member association
fails to punish, or punishes in an inappropriate manner, offences which damage
football's essence. The offences targeted relate in particular to match-fixing,
corruption and doping. "
207. On 31 May 2013, UEFA issued a circular letter (No. 24/2013) to its members, This
circular letter, inter alia, stipulates the following:
"The new UEFA Disciplinwy Regulations are designed to meet three basic
objectives: ( .. .) (iii) to provide the UEFA disciplinwy bodies with specific
competences in matters relating to corruption and match-fixing, also allowing
them to tackle match-fixing more effectively at national/eve!."
and

"Thirdly, another new article is introduced whereby the UEFA Control and
Disciplinary Body confirms UEFA 's jurisdiction in the event of a UEFA member
association and/or its members failing to prosecute, or prosecuting in an
inappropriate manner, an offence which is likely to harm the essence offootball,
notably offences of match-fixing, corruption and doping. "
208. Based on the wording of article 23(4) of the UEFA DR (2013) itself, the press release
and UEFA's previous disciplinary decisions regarding its competence, the Appellant
finds that UEFA confirmed that it had no disciplinary competence for disciplinary
violations in national competitions according to the UEFA DR (2008), but that such
competence was only created with the introduction of article 23(4) in the UEFA DR
(2013).
209. In this respect, UEFA purports that the fact that it introduced article 23(4) in the
UEFA DR in 2013 does not mean that the already existing jurisdiction of UEFA,
confirmed by CAS in the matter pertaining to Olympiakos Volou (CAS 2011/A/2528),
to declare ineligible to its own international competition and to take additional
disciplinary measures for match-fixing in national or international matches is in any
form limited. UEFA had jurisdiction in such cases and still has it.
210. The majority of the Panel considers the introduction of miicle 23(4) in the UEFA DR
(2013) to be a confirmation of UEFA's disciplinary competence in matters of
particular importance to UEFA, despite the fact that such matters should notmally be
dealt with by national associations.
211. The press release citing the President of UEFA and referred to by the Appellant is not
a legally binding document and, moreover, according to the majority of the Panel, it
conflicts, at least partially, with the content of UEFA's circular letter. On the one
hand, the press release determines that additional power has been granted to the UEFA
disciplinary bodies. Whereas, on the other hand, the circular letter states that the
UEFA CDB confirms UEFA's jurisdiction, which might be interpreted as if UEFA
already had competence and that this competence is now (newly) confirmed.
212. The Panel observes that on 23 May 2013 numerous amendments and structural
changes have been made to the UEFA DR (2013). Undoubtedly, the competence of
UEFA in national match-fixing cases became clearer in the 2013 version of the UEFA
DC, which might exactly have been the intention of UEFA in mnending its
regulations. The majority of the Panel finds that the competence of the UEFA CDB is
indeed widened by article 23(4) UEFA DR (2013), but not in respect of national
match-fixing cases. The majority of the Panel finds that this competence already
existed before the introduction of the UEFA DR (2013) by means of article 2.05 and
2.06 of the UCLR in conjunction with miicle 50(3) ofthe UEFA Statutes and miicle 5
of the UEFA DR (2008). The majority of the Panel finds that UEFA's reference to
additional competence may be explained by the definition "serious violation" in
article 23(4), which has a wider scope as only match-fixing offences.
213. The majority of the Panel finds that this intetpretation of the regulations is
strengthened by the decision of the UEFA CDB concerning the Turkish football club
Be~ikta~ dated 21 June 2013, where the conclusion was reached that "Be$ikta JK is
not eligible to participate in the UEFA Europa League 2013/2014", but that "This

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 53
decision is without prejudice to any jill'ther disciplinary measure that may be imposed
on Beijiktaij JK in due course". This case also concerned alleged match-fixing in the
Turkish national league.
214. Finally, the majority of the Panel finds that the reasoning of the following chapter d of
this award strengthens the conclusion that UEFA had competence to instigate
disciplinary proceedings against Fenerbah<;e on the basis of mticle 2.06 UCLR
(20 11/2012), particularly because the UEFA Letter indicates that already at that time
(23 August 2011) UEFA was of the view that a higher sanction could be imposed as a
one-year period of ineligibility only. The majority of the Panel finds that this UEFA
practise shows that UEFA was of the opinion that it already had competence to
instigate disciplinary proceedings against clubs for match-fixing in national matches
before the introduction of mticle 23(4) of the UEFA DR (2013) and as such
contradicts the proposition that this competence was only created with the entry into
force of this new provision.
215. In respect of the alleged offence of deliberately improperly filling in the UEFA
Admission Form for the 2011/2012 UEFA Champions League season, the Panel finds
that this is not an offence that can be sanctioned by UEFA on the basis of mticle 5
UEFA DR (2008). Alticle 5 of the UEFA DR (2008) does not contain a clear and
unambiguous provision incriminating the improper completion of this form. The
Admission Form itself neither states that an improper completion would lead to
disciplinmy proceedings being initiated by UEFA The Panel also adheres with the
Appellant's contention that, unless regulated differently, not confessing to an offence
in an Admission Form catmot be sanctioned as a distinct offence, patticularly if no
proceedings in respect of such alleged offence have been initiated at the moment of
filling in the form.
216. Consequently, the majority of the Panel finds that UEFA had competence to instigate
disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant and that the sanctions imposed on the
Appellant in respect of match-fixing were in accordance with the legality principle,
i.e. that the material and the te1Titorial scope me defined within the rules and
regulations of the UEFA in a clear and unambiguous way. The Panel however also
concludes that UEFA did not have competence to instigate disciplinary proceedings
against the Appellant for improperly filling in the Admission Form.
d)
Was UEFA estopped jiom instigating disciplinmy proceedings against

Fenerba!u;e because of the UEFA General Secretary's letter dated 23 August
2011?
217. On 23 August 2011, Mr Giatmi Infantino, UEFA General Secretmy, sent a letter to the
President of the TFF, with, inter alia, the following content:
"You will also understand that UEFA cannot tolerate a situation where a club
from one member association is excluded from our competitions because its
national governing body has taken rapid and effective disciplinary action whilst,
at the same time, a club from another member association is able to participate in
our competitions because its national governing body fails to act. This would
effectively penalise those national associations who are most efficient in dealing
with cases of match-fixing and this is exactly the kind of strong and effective

football governance that UEFA wishes to promote, not deter. Furthermore, if we

do not follow a similar policy approach in relation to matters of such crucial
importance this will damage not only the credibility and integrity of UEFA club
competitions but will also contradict the principle of equal treatment.
As you know, under the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League (2011/2012
edition) any club that has, since April 2007, been directly or indirectly involved in
any activity aimed at irifluencing the outcome of a match is not eligible to
participate in the competition. The period of ineligibility is effective for one year
only.
Consequently, given the evidence that now exists, it appears to us that Fenerbache
[sic] should not be eligible to participate in the UEFA Champions League this
season. In the circumstances, it also appears that the appropriate course of action
would now be for Fenerbache [sic] to withdraw its participation from the UEFA
Champions League for this season. Alternatively, the TFF may withdraw the club
from the competition.
We should point out that if one or other of these paths of action is not taken and
or in the coming months) an eventual sanction is likely considerably more severe,
in particular, if the club is found guilty of lying when it completed the Admission
Criteria form confirming that it had not been involved in any match-fixing activity
since April 2007. Whilst we cannot predict the form of sanction that might finally
be imposed we can advise that in some other cases of match-fixing (e.g. Pobeda)
clubs have been banned from participation in UEFA club competitions for up to
eight years.
For the sake of completeness, we must also advise you that, if the TFF does not
deal with this matter now this will also lead to appropriate disciplinary steps
being taken against the TFF. As you will understand, UEFA cannot accept, in all
these circumstances, that Fenerbache [sic] starts in the UEFA Champions League
this season and is then subsequently excluded from the competition because
involvement in match-fixing is finally established."
(i)
218. Given that the TFF decided on the next day, 24 August 2011, to withdraw the
Appellant from the 201112012 UEFA Champions League season, the Appellant
submits that UEFA was prevented from subjecting the Appellant to ftnther
punishment for two distinct reasons. First, because a contract .was concluded the
general principle of pacta sunt servanda prevents ftnther punishment. Second, even if
no such contract had been concluded, the UEFA Letter and other events that followed
prevented UEFA fiom imposing sanctions on the Appellant on the basis of the
doctrines of estoppel by waiver or venire contra factum proprium.
219. The Appellant purpmts that UEFA made a binding offer that was at least implicitly
accepted by the TFF, thus concluding a contract by mutual expression of intent.
Naturally, the principle of pacta sunt servanda applies to all terms of the contract,
including UEFA's promise not to open a disciplinary procedure against the Appellant.

CAS2013/A/3256FenerbahyeSporKuliibiiv.UEFA-Page55
This contract is, at least partially, a contract for the benefit of a third party, namely the
Appellant, which gives the Appellant the right to compel UEFA not to open a
disciplinaiy procedure against it. The Appellant finds that UEFA's offer must be read
in a way that UEFA would only open disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant if
neither the Appellant withdrew, nor the TFF removed it from the 2011/2012
Champions League season. This proposition is further confirmed by an internal
document ofUEFA.
220. The Appellant finds UEFA's interpretation of the UEFA Letter as merely "inviting the
TFF to consider whether it was appropriate" to remove the Appellant and, thus,
qualifYing the decision ofthe TFF as "voluntary" and "absolutely autonomous" to be
absurd.
221. Even if the UEFA Letter and the immediate reaction of the TFF did not lead to a valid
contract for the benefit of the Appellant, quod non, the Appellant still finds that UEFA
would be baned from instigating disciplinary proceedings based on the principles of
estoppel by waiver or venire contra factum proprium. Under these principles, the party
that induces reliance as a result of a statement or any other conduct, is then estopped
from taking the action that the other party relied on and believed it would not take.
222. The Appellant submits that it would be punished for its reliance on the UEFA Letter if
CAS would allow UEFA to forego its promise and sanction the Appellant even though
UEFA had stated repeatedly that it would not do so.
223. UEFA finds that the Appellant's position is contrmy to both the wording of the letter
itself and to common sense. The UEFA Letter was not on its face an offer, a contract
or a representation, but a simple invitation to the TFF to act. The taking of a decision
by the TFF meant that the UEFA Administration did not proceed to take a decision
under article 2.05 of the UCLR (2011/2012). The TFF decision only applied to the
upcoming season, just as a UEFA decision under mticle 2.05 would have done.
224. According to UEFA, the UEFA Letter simply states that if the Appellant is not
withdrawn, the "eventual sanction" in any disciplinary proceedings that arise "is
likely to be considerably more severe:". In fact, the withdrawal of the Appellant by the
TFF has most likely resulted in the imposition of a sanction that is less severe than it
would have been had the withdrawal not occuned. The Appellant wrongly seeks to
characterise the comparison as being between the one-year period of ineligibility
imposed by the TFF and future disciplinary measures, when on the face of the UEFA
Letter the comparison is between future disciplinary measures after a withdrawal, and
future disciplinary measures ifthere was no withdrawal.

225. At the occasion of the hearing, the Appellant called as witnesses Mr Koy, vicepresident of Fenerbah9e between 2006 and 2012, and Mr Ozdemir, vice-president of
Fenerbahye until 19 May 2012. These two witnesses testified about the factual
circumstances sunounding the withdrawal of the Appellant by the TFF from the
2011/2012 UEFA Chmnpions League season.

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs;e Spor Kullibii v. UEFA- Page 56
226. Both witnesses confilmed that the Appellant, based on its own statutes, was not able to
withdraw from the 201112012 UEFA Champions League season, as was requested by
UEFA in its letter dated 23 August 2011 and that the Appellant challenged its
withdrawal because it believed that this decision of the TFF was unfair.
227. The Panel finds that in order for a third party to be able to rely on the content of a
contract, there must be a contract. In the present case such contract is supposed to
have been concluded between UEFA and the TFF. There is however no exchange of
declarations between these two entities. Therefore, the Panel is not convinced that a
contract has been concluded. Consequently, a third party (the Appellant) cannot derive
any rights fiom such contract. The TFF - being a member of UEFA - merely acted in
compliance with an order (or threat) from UEFA, which does not mean that a contract
is concluded. As such, the Panel has no difficulties in concluding that UEFA was not
estopped from instigating disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant based on this
argument.
228. Tuming its attention to the Appellant's argument regarding the alleged estoppel by
waiver, the Panel finds that UEFA's order (or threat) was only related to the
"administrative measure" (i.e. the minimum sanction) and not to any subsequent
(appropriate) "disciplinary measmes". In this respect the Panel considers it crucial that
Mr Koc; and Mr Ozdemir clarified at the occasion of the hearing that they interpreted
UEFA's order (or threat) and subsequent explanations in a way that if such order
would be followed no disciplinary proceedings at all would be opened by UEFA, but
could not confitm that UEFA specifically promised them that it would not open
disciplinary proceedings if the Appellant would pull its appeal with CAS against the
TFF' s withdrawal. The Panel finds that in case of any doubt in respect of the content
of the UEFA Letter and subsequent explanations, the Appellant should have clarified
and formalised the situation with UEFA.
229. The Panel also deems it relevant that UEFA indeed kept its promise not to impose a
minimum sanction according to article 2.05 UCLR on the Appellant after the TFF
withdrew the Appellant fiom the 2011/2012 Champions League season, the remaining
question is therefore whether the UEFA Letter was limited only to this one-year
period of ineligibility or whether it also extended to the second stage of the "two stage
process".
230. The Panel finds that the UEFA Letter was limited to a one-year period of ineligibility
during the 2011/2012 season of the UEFA Champions League. The letter determines
that "[c]onsequently, given the evidence that now exists, it appears to us that
Fenerbache [sic] should not be eligible to participate in the UEFA Champions League
this season. In the circumstances, it also appears that the appropriate course of action
would now be for Fenerbache [sic] to withdraw its participation from the UEFA
Champions League for this season. Alternatively, the TFF may withdraw the club from
the competition. "
231. As such, the Panel understands that the main intention of UEFA in issuing this letter
appears to have been to prevent the participation of the Appellant from the 201112012
UEFA Champions League season, not directly the instigation of disciplinary
proceedings. If the Appellant or the TFF would not comply with this order, UEFA left

open the possibility to pronounce a one-year period of ineligibility itself. The Panel
understands that UEFA shared this information without prejudice to the opening of
disciplinary proceedings.
232. In this respect, the Panel deems it impotiant that UEFA infmmed the TFF that
"[w]hilst we cannot predict the form of sanction that might finally be imposed we can
advise that in some other cases of match-fixing (e.g. Pobeda) clubs have been banned
ji-om participation in UEFA club competitions for up to eight years". The majority of
the Panel is not convinced by the Appellant why this sentence should be read in
another way as that UEFA left open the possibility to pronounce a one-year period of
ineligibility and a "disciplinary measure" at the same time, as UEFA finally did in the
matter concerning Olympiakos Volou.
233. The Panel observes that the UEFA Letter reads, inter alia, as follows:
"We should point out that if one or other of these paths of action is not taken and
or in the coming months) an eventual sanction is likely considerably more
severe".
234. In interpreting this sentence, the Panel fmds that although the words "Disciplinary
Procedure" are ambiguous, the Panel understands that UEFA referred to disciplinary
proceedings in accordance with article 2.05 UCLR (201112012) and not article 2.06.
The Panel understands the UEFA Letter as informing the TFF that if the Appellant
. would not withdraw itself or is withdrawn by the TFF, UEFA would have to open its
own disciplinary proceedings on the basis of mticle 2.05 of the UCLR in order for the
Appellant to be declmed ineligible to participate in the 2011/2012 UEFA Champions
League season. If such proceedings (on the basis of article 2.05 of the UCLR) would
have to be opened, the disciplinmy sanction deriving from the disciplinary
proceedings in respect of article 2.06 of the UCLR, that would follow in any event,
were likely to be considerably more severe.
235. The Panel deems the words "more severe" to be a comparison between the situation in
which the Appellant would decide to withdraw itself or if the TFF would decide to
withdraw the Appellant and the situation in which UEFA had to withdraw the
Appellant. In any of these two situations UEFA would be entitled to impose severe
sanctions on the Appellant, however, if the Appellant and the TFF would not comply
with the order, the sanction would be more severe. The Panel finds this to be an
important indication that if the Appellant withdrew itself or if the TFF withdrew the
Appellant (as finally happened), UEFA would still be entitled to open disciplinary
proceedings against the Appellant on the basis of miicle 2.06 of the UCLR
(2011/2012) subject to the prerequisites contained therein and to impose a severe
sanction on the Appellant, but less severe as it would have imposed should the
Appellant or the TFF not have complied with UEFA's order. The "threat" of imposing
a "more severe" sanction, would be nonsensical if such sanction would be limited to a
one-year period of ineligibility, as is the maximum period of ineligibility that can be
imposed on the basis of miicle 2.05 of the UCLR. Accordingly, the Panel understands
that it was no promise of UEFA that no disciplinary proceedings pursuant to article
2.06 of the UCLR (2011/2012) would be opened.

236. Moreover, the Panel finds that the Appellant did not in good faith rely on the content
of the UEFA Letter. The Appellant in fact challenged the content of the UEFA Letter
before CAS. Accordingly, the Appellant cannot first challenge the content of the
UEFA Letter and now rely on the content of the same letter. The Panel also finds it
contradictory that the Appellant on the one hand entirely disputes UEFA's
competence to open disciplinary proceedings against it, but on the other hand
maintains that UEFA had competence to open disciplinary proceedings, but, based on
the content of the UEFA Letter, is prevented from instigating further disciplinary
proceedings in addition to the period of ineligibility already served.
23 7. In light of the above, the Panel concludes that UEFA was not estopped from
instigating disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant based on the content of
UEFA's letter dated 23 August 2011 and that the principle of venire contra factum
proprium was not violated.
e)
Can UEFA impose a sanction on Fenerbulu;e even if it deems tlwt the level
of information obtuined in relution to the individuuls is not Sl!{jicient to issue
(t sunction uguinst them yet?
(i)
The position of the purties
238. The Appellant maintains that the Appealed Decision is illegal because of a
fundamental contradiction that has its roots in the proceedings before the previous
instance; the proceedings before the UEFA CDB. On 22 June 2013, the UEFA CDB
decided to abstain from imposing any sanctions on the individuals as requested by the
UEFA Disciplinary Inspector, but decided that "[t]he Disciplinary Inspector will
provide a supplementary report with regard to the proceedings instigated against [the
individuals]".
239. The Appellant asserts that by vitiue of this decision, the UEFA CDB clearly admitted
that it did not deem the infmmation submitted to it sufficient to sanction any of the
five individuals for a breach of article 5 UEFA DR. Notwithstanding this admission,
the UEFA CDB rendered a second decision imposing a sanction on the Appellant,
holding it liable for the exact same allegations that the UEFA CDB deemed itself
insufficiently informed of when it came to the individuals.
240. The Appellant finds that it is a universally accepted principle that a legal entity in and
of itself is incapable of "acting", meaning that it can only be held liable indirectly by
attributing to it the wrongdoing of human beings. This presupposes that a breach of
article 5 UEFA DR (2008) by such individuals must be established before the
Appellant can, in a second step, be held liable for such actions under Article 6(1) and
11(1) UEFA DR. In other words, the Appellant's liability is as an accessory to the
breaches committed by its officials, failing which there is nothing for which the
Appellant could be held liable.
241. The Appellant futihermore submits that the Appealed Decision is so shockingly vague
and unspecific about the alleged acts of the individuals that it is extremely difficult for
the Appellant to even defend itself against these allegations. Second, it does not make
any sense for CAS to decide on the alleged actions of the individuals now, given that
the UEF A Disciplinmy Inspector is currently engaged in preparing an additional

Court of Arbitration for Spoct
report to shed more light on these very allegations, and that the UEFA CDB sometime
in the future will have to take a decision on the basis of this additional repmt.
242. UEFA argues that the UEFA CDB has decided to focus on the more urgent case of the
Appellant and, after having assessed the behaviour of the Appellant through its
officials decided to sanction the Appellant. At the same time, the UEFA CDB decided
to resolve at a later stage the less urgent cases of the several officials involved, so that
the appropriate sanction on each individual would be imposed.
243. Also, UEFA puts forward that the Appellant cannot asse1t that the UEFA CDB and the
UEFA Appeals Body did not actually conclude that named officials were involved as
explained below. The UEFA CDB did establish to its comfortable satisfaction that
named high-ranked officials of the Appellant have been involved in activities that
violate mticle 5 of the UEFA DR (2008). So too the UEFA Appeals Body held that
named officials had been involved in particular identified matches. Simply, the UEFA
CDB has not yet taken all the decisions that will address the single position of each
individual. It is not the case that either the UEFA CDB, or the UEFA Appeals Body,
or in tum CAS, were not or cannot be satisfied that an individual has done something
wrong.
244. UEFA finally avers that it is not a condition sine qua non that sanctions are imposed
on individuals in order for UEFA to sanction a club. Neither article 6, nor mticle 11 of
the UEFA DR (2008) requires formal steps to be taken against individuals in order for
a club to be held liable for their conduct. In this respect UEFA purports that also
"indirect" influencing the outcome of a match is prohibited and that such indirect
involvement could be held to have arisen without any finding against individual
officers.

245. The Panel finds that the UEFA CDB's request for a supplementary report in respect of
the individuals and thus to bifurcate the proceedings, did not prevent the UEFA CDB
from rendering a decision in respect of the Appellant. It is not a prerequisite under the
UEFA DR that individuals are sanctioned before or at the same time the club is
sanctioned.
246. The UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body were able to assess the information
provided to it by the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector and on the basis of this information
decide that certain persons were engaged in the fixing of ce1tain matches. If the UEFA
CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body would have found that only one match was fixed
by officials of the Appellant, this would, in the opinion of the Panel, already be
sufficient for the Appellant to be liable for this conduct. It is however feasible that the
UEFA CDB wanted to have more information in respect of the individuals in order to
obtain a complete picture of their conduct so as to impose adequate and proportionate
sauctions on them.
247. Consequently, the Panel concludes that UEFA could impose a sanction on Fenerbah9e
even if UEFA deemed that the level of information obtained in relation to the
individuals was not sufficient to issue a sanction against them yet.

Courl of Arbitration for Sport
f)
Should the disciplinmy proceedings be remitted back to UEFA due to a

violation of several procedural rights?
(i) The position of tlte parties
248. The Appellant asse1is that the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body violated
several procedural rights and therefore requests the proceedings to be remitted back to
the UEFA bodies by CAS.
249. First, the Appellant maintains that the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector took nearly two
years to submit his repmi on 31 May 2013, which was only made available to the
Appellant on 10 June 2013, i.e. approximately one month before the draw for the third
qualification round was scheduled to take place. The UEFA adjudicatory bodies failed
to recognise or were tmwilling to accept that the complexity of the matter was clearly
not suitable for a "hyper-expedited" last-minute proceedings, which did not leave
enough time for the Appellant to properly prepare its defence and for the UEFA
bodies to conduct a procedure and issue decisions wmihy of adjudicatory bodies.
250. The Appellant further pmports that in the proceedings before the UEFA CDB several
documents were submitted to it only shortly before the hearing. For example, the
Appellant alleges that the UEFA Appeals Body largely based its Appealed Decision
on a submission made by the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector approximately 18 hours
before the hearing.
251. In this respect, the Appellant finds that there was not even a valid argument of urgency
that could be advanced to try and justifY UEFA's blatant disregard of some of the
Appellant's most fundamental procedural rights. If CAS tolerated proceedings of this
nature to take place before UEFA's adjudicatory bodies, this would effectively deprive
the Appellant of two of the three instances that the UEFA Statutes expressly
guarantee.
252. Moreover, the Appellant avers that UEFA violated the principle of immediacy. The
UEFA Disciplinary Inspector merely relied on third-pa1iy fact-finding of the
disciplinary bodies of the TFF and the 161h High Criminal Comi. On the other hand,
the Appellant provided first hand evidence by producing 11 witnesses at the hearing
before the UEFA Appeals Body, who testified to the events sunounding the
allegations. Despite this, the UEFA Appeals Body blindly followed the third-party
evidence presented by the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector in violation of the principle of
immediacy, without even mentioning any of the witness testimony presented by the
Appellant.
253. Finally, the Appellant submits that these violations cannot be remedied by the de novo
competence of CAS pursuant to Article R57 of the CAS Code. Even in an expedited
proceeding, the file is too voluminous in respect of the merits for a proper proceeding
under the expedited procedure.
254. Therefore, in order to remedy these violations, the Appellant requests the case to be
remitted back to the UEFA CDB.

255. UEFA finds that the Appellant's various arguments in respect of its procedural rights
are without merit. First, UEFA refers to the long and well-established jurisprudence of
CAS that the de novo nature of its jurisdiction, pursuant to A1iicle R57 of the CAS
Code, cures any previous procedural defects before an earlier instance.
256. UEFA also maintains that the Appellant and its officials have !mown the case against
them since the carrying out of the TFF disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case.
257. UEFA furthe1more finds that there has been no violation of the principle of
innnediacy. It would be contrary to the wording of the applicable mles and to common
sense to consider that in the context of an intemational sports goveming body's
regulation of its sport, it should not be able to place reliance inter alia upon
information and evidence resulting from investigations, decisions and other procedural
acts of its national member federations or of state courts and authorities, especially
when the evidence is by its nature difficult to be collected. In this respect, UEFA
mainly pmports that the concept of immediacy, or best evidence, is a criminal law
concept and the UEFA disciplinary proceedings do not fall to be measured by
reference to criminal law standards.
258. In continuation, UEFA maintains that under Swiss law, with reference to
jurispmdence of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, civil tribunals such as spotis goveming
body's disciplinary bodies are pe1mitted to take into account information, evidence
and decisions resulting from criminal court proceedings or other sports tribunal
proceedings. This is specifically determined in article 2.05 of the UCLR, where it is
stated that evidence on which the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body may rely
expressly includes "a decision of a national or international sporting body, arbitral
tribunal or state court"; covering therefore both the TFF Decision and the decision of
the 161h High Criminal Comi in Turkey.
259. Finally, the adjudicatory bodies of UEFA did not limit themselves in relying on the
decision of the TFF and the decision of the 161h High Criminal Court in Turkey. UEFA
also relied on the Police Digest, the report of the TFF Ethics Committee, the first
instance disciplinary decision of the TFF, the Supreme Court Prosecutor's position
that the convictions should be upheld and the inadequacy of the purported
explanations given by the officials of the Appellant.
260. The Panel observes that cetiain infmmation was submitted to the Appellant by UEFA
shmily before the hearing. Although it may be true that counsel for the Appellant did
not see the documents before, this does not prevent the proceedings to continue as it
appears that these documents were mostly translations of documents that were already
known to the Appellant. The Panel finds that, at least in the CAS proceedings, both
parties had full oppotiunity to present their case and that the documents that might
have been new to the Appellant in the proceedings before the UEFA CDB and the
UEF A Appeals Body could have been assessed in detail in the preparation of the case
before CAS. Therefore, even if certain procedural rights of the Appellant were
violated in the proceedings before UEFA, this could be repaired by the de novo
competence of CAS.

261. The Panel adheres with the statements made in this respect in CAS 2009/A/18801881, where it was determined that:
"the Panel must point out that there is a long line of CAS awards, even going
back many years, which have relied on Art. R57 of the CAS Code ("The Panel
shall have full power to review the facts and the law') to firmly establish that the
CAS appeals arbitration allows a full de novo hearing of a case, with all due
process guarantees, which can cure any procedural defects or violations of the
right to be heard occurred during a federation 's (or other sports body's) internal
procedure. Indeed, CAS appeals arbitration proceedings allow the parties ample
latitude not only to present written submissions with new evidence, but also to
have an oral hearing during which witnesses are examined and cross-examined,
evidence is provided and comprehensive pleadings can be made. This is exactly
what happened in the present CAS proceedings, where the Appellants were given
any opportunity to fitlly put forward their case and to submit any evidence they
wished." (CAS 2009/A/1880-1881, 18-21, with further references to CAS
2003/0/486, 50; TAS 2004/A/549, 31; CAS 2006/A/1153, 53; CAS
2008/A/1594, 109; TAS 2008/A/1582, 54; CAS 2008/A/1394, 21; TAS
2009/A/1879, 71).
262. Which was confitmed in CAS 2012/A/2913:

"Therefore even if a violation of the principle of due process, or of the right to be
heard, occurred in the proceedings in respect of which the appeal is brought, it is
cured, at least to the extent such violation did not irreparably impair the First
Appellant's rights, by a full appeal to the CAS (CAS 94/129; CAS 98/211; CAS
2000/A/274; CAS 2000/A/281; CAS 2000/A/317; CAS 2002/A/378). In fact, the
virtue of an appeal system which allows for a full rehearing before an appellate
body is that issues relating to the fairness of the hearing before the tribunal of
first instance "fade to the periphery" (CAS 981211, citing Swiss doctrine and
jurisprudence)"
263. The Panel believes that the Appellant's procedmal rights were satisfied in the present
arbitration proceedings. The Panel allowed the Appellant to call an initial ntu'llber of
55 witnesses, a number that finally, on the initiative of the Appellant, was reduced to
19. The Appellant submitted an appeal brief of 122 pages together with 109 exhibits
and 12 defences and the hearing lasted for two entire days. The Panel finds that the
Appellant fully utilised its right to be heard.
264. Before the hearing was concluded, both parties expressly stated that they did not have
any objection with the procedure and that their right to be heard had been respected..
The Appellant however stated that the expedited nature of the proceedings was not
voluntary and that this is why it requested the matter to be refened back to UEF A.
265. The Panel has some sympathy for the Appellant's difficult evidentiary position in the
proceedings before UEFA's adjudicatory bodies, patticularly because UEFA has the
sole discretion in deciding when to open disciplinary proceedings against a club. In the
present case the Panel was not provided with a particular reason why disciplinary
proceedings were only opened in May 2013. Although there is some friction here, the
Panel finds that the Appellant chose to abide by the regulations enacted by UEFA by

filling in the UEFA Admission Form in order to participate in the UEFA Champions
League, as paragraph c) of the form determines that the undersigned (i.e. Fenerbahs;e)
"agrees that any proceedings before CAS related to the admission to, participation in
or exclusion from one of the above-mentioned competitions will be held in an
expedited manner in accordance with the Code of Sports-related Arbitration of the
CAS and with the directions issued by the CAS; ". The Appellant thereby consented to
expedited proceedings. The filling in of this Admission Form is indeed not totally
voluntary as it is a prerequisite for participation in UEFA's European competitions.
However, the Appellant, as a member of UEFA (an association under Swiss law) is
subject to the rules and regulations enacted by UEFA to which it in general wishes to
abide.
266. The Panel does not agree that the Appellant would have effectively lost two instances
if CAS would not remit the case back to UEFA. Although there may have been some
procedural flaws in the UEFA proceedings, the Appellant had the opportunity to
submit a defence, have a hearing and hear witnesses in the proceedings before
UEFA's disciplinary bodies. Moreover, the Panel finds that the outcome of the
proceedings before UEFA's adjudicatory bodies is conect and that referring the case
back to UEFA would solely lead to delays and presumably a confirmation of the
sanction that is currently pronounced.
267. Finally, also the alternative request for relief of the Appellant to suspend the present
proceedings until 30 October 2013, when the Turkish Supreme Conrt is expected to
have issued a final decision on the criminal proceedings is dismissed. The Panel will
malce its own evaluation of the five matches that were allegedly fixed. Even if the
Turkish Supreme Court would acquit all the persons accused, this would not have any
influence on the conclusions of the Panel in these appeal arbitration proceedings.
Conclusion
268. Consequently, the following conclusions can be drawn in respect of the procedural
and fotmal aspects raised by the Appellant:
a)
The Panel concludes that UEFA violated the legal principle of res iudicata in
considering some factual elements in second instance (Appeals Body) which
were not part of the procedure before the UEFA CDB and that the scope of the
present proceedings is therefore limited to the five matches in respect of which
the Appellant was convicted by the UEFA CDB.
b) The Panel concludes that UEFA did not violate the principle of ne bis in idem.
c) The (majority of the) Panel concludes that UEFA was competent to instigate
disciplinary proceedings in respect of match-fixing against Fenerbahs;e and the
sanctions pronounced in this respect were in accordance with the legality
principle. There is however no clear legal basis to sanction Fenerbahs;e for
improperly completing an Admission Form and no distinct sanctions should be
imposed in this respect.
d) The Panel concludes that UEFA was not estopped from instigating disciplinary
proceedings against Fenerbahs;e because of the UEFA General Secretary's letter
dated 23 August 2011.
Tribunal Arbitral du Sporl

e)
f)
The Panel concludes that UEFA could impose a sanction on Fenerbah9e even if
it deemed that the level of information obtained in relation to the individuals was
not sufficient to issue a sanction against them yet.
The Panel concludes that the disciplinary proceedings shall not be remitted back
to UEFA due to a violation of several procedural rights.
269. Since the (majority of the) Panel came to the conclusion that it is not prevented from
entering into the merits of the case by the procedural and formal issues raised by the
Appellant, the Panel will now proceed to assess the question whether Fenerbahye was
indeed involved in match-fixing activities, and if necessary, whether the sanction
imposed by UEFA was proportionate. The Panel wishes to clarify that all the
references to the "majority of the Panel" in this award solely derive from the
discussion on UEFA's tetritorial competence under article 2.06 of the UCLR
(2011/2012).
270. As indicated supra the Panel will only assess whether Fenerbahye was involved in
match-fixing activities in relation to the five matches that were specifically mentioned
in the UEFA CDB Decision, i.e. Genylerbirligi SK v. Fenerbahye (7 March 2011),
Fenerbah9e v. IBB Spor (1 May 2011), Karabiikspor v. Fenerbah9e (8 May 2011),
MKE Ankaragiicii v. Fenerbah9e (15 May 2011) and Sivasspor v. Fenerbah9e (22
May2011).
2. Merits
g) Do the merits of the case warrant disciplinary sanctions being imposed on

Fenerbalu;e?
271. Before assessing the above-mentioned matches one by one in chronological order, the
Panel will first establish the applicable standard of proof.
i.
The standard of proof to be applied
272. Throughout the proceedings before the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body,
UEFA consistently applied the standard of proof of"comfortable satisfaction".
273. The Panel observes that atiicle 2.05 of the UCLR determines that "if(. ..) UEFA
concludes to its comfortable satisfaction that a club has been directly and/or indirectly
involved (. ..) in any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match
at national or international level, UEFA will declare such club ineligible to
participate in the competition. (. ..) ". As such, the standard of proof to be applied in
sanctioning a club on the basis of miicle 2.05 of the UCLR is "comfortable
satisfaction".
274. Article 2.06 of the UCLR does not define the standard of proof to be applied. In
principle, therefore, the answer to this question is to be followed from Swiss law that
applies subsidiarily in the case at hand (cf. 115 et seq.), since the standard of proofaccording to Swiss law- is an issue of substantive law.
275. The Panel observes that CAS jurisprudence is inconsistent in its approach to the
standard of proof to be applied in civil cases. On the one hand, it is held that "[u]nder
Tribunal Arbitrcl du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs;e Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 65
Swiss law, the standard of proof normally applied to a civil claim is whether the
alleged facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt, thereby leading to the
judges' conviction that the claim is well founded" (CAS 2006/A/1130). However, on
the other hand, CAS jurispmdence determines that the standard of proof in civil law
cases is "balance of probability" (e.g. CAS 2011/A/2426, 88, with references to CAS
2010/A/2172, 53; CAS 2009/A/1920, 85); "the Panel needs to be convinced that an
allegation is true by a "balance of probability", i.e. that the occurrence of the
circumstances on which it relies is more probable than their non-occurrence" (CAS
2010/A/2267, 732, with references to CAS 2008/A/1370 & 1376, 127; CAS
2004/A/602, 5.15; TAS 2007/A/1411, 59).
276. This Panel finds that the standard of proof to be applied in civil law cases is "beyond
reasonable doubt" (SFT 132 III 715, E. 3.1; BK-ZPO/BR6NNIMANN, 2012, Art. 157
no. 40).
277. The Panel observes that CAS jurispmdence has sometimes found that the applicable
standard of proof in match-fixing cases is "comfottable satisfaction" in analogy to
doping cases according to the WADC (CAS 2009/A/1920, 85; CAS 2011/A/2528,
134; CAS 2010/A/2172, 53; CAS 2010/A/2267, 732). According thereto, the
standard of comfo1table satisfaction is a flexible one, i.e. greater than a mere balance
of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt bearing in mind the
seriousness of the allegation which is being made (CAS 2004/A/607, 34).
278. The justifications put fmward by CAS panels for this departure from the normally
applicable standard of proof in civil cases vary. In CAS 2009/A/1920, it was held that:
"Taking into account the nature of the conflict in question and the paramount
importance offighting corruption of any kind in sport and also considering the
nature and restricted powers of the investigating authorities of the governing
bodies of sport as compared to national formal interrogation authorities, the
Panel is of the opinion that cases of match-fixing should be dealt with in line with
the CAS constant jurisprudence on disciplinary doping cases. Therefore, the
UEFA must establish the relevant facts to the comfortable satisfaction of the
Court having in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made." (CAS
2009/A/1920, 85)
279. In CAS 2010/A/2172 the panel found that the application of the standard of
comfortable satisfaction could also be justified because "corruption is, by nature,
concealed as the parties involved will seek to use evasive means to ensure that they
leave no trail of their wrongdoing" (CAS 2010/A/2172, 70).
280. The reasoning in CAS 2009/A/1920 is not easy to follow. Disciplinary proceedings
are- according to constant CAS jurispmdence- considered to be civil in nature (CAS
2005/C/976&986, 127). It is, however, typical and usual in disputes of a civil nature
that the parties involved never have investigative powers like "national formal
interrogation authorities". Therefore, at least according to Swiss law, the "restricted
investigative powers" of a party can never justify a reduced standard of proof in civil
matters, since otherwise the normal standard of proof in civil matters ("beyond
reasonable doubt") would never be applicable.

CAS 2013/N3256 Fenerbahs:e Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 66
281. However, this being said, the Panel also notes that Swiss law is not blind vis-a-vis
difficulties of proving ("Beweisnotstand"). Instead, Swiss law !mows a number of
tools in order to ease the - sometimes difficult- burden put on a party to prove certain
facts. These tools range from a duty of the other party to cooperate in the process of
fact finding, to a shifting of the burden of proof or to a reduction of the applicable
standard of proof The latter is the case, if- from an objective standpoint- a party has
no access to direct evidence (but only to circumstantial evidence) in order to prove a
specific fact (SFT 132 III 715, E. 3.1; BK-ZPO/BRONNIMANN, 2012, Art. 157 no. 41;
BSK-ZPO/GUYAN, 2nd ed. 2013, Art. 157 no. 11). In the case at hand, the Panel
acknowledges that there is only circumstantial evidence available to UEFA to prove
the facts it relies upon. In view of these difficulties of proving, the Panel is prepared to
apply the standard of comfmtable satisfaction to the case at hand.
282. Consequently, the Panel has no hesitation to apply the standard of comfmtable
satisfaction as the standard of proof to which extent the Panel must be convinced that
the Appellant was involved in match-fixing. The burden of proof necessarily lies with
UEFA.
ii.
General arguments of the parties

283. Besides several match-specific defences submitted by Fenerbah9e, it also made certain
general objections in respect of the evidence taken into account by UEFA's
disciplinary bodies throughout the proceedings and that certain evidence adduced by
the Appellant was not given the appropriate weight.
284. In this respect, Fenerbah9e maintains that UEFA based its allegations mainly on
wiretaps conducted by the Istanbul police and that there are several issues with these
wiretaps and their presentation, which highlights the flaw in relying on these taps to
make a decision. Despite the fact that the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector had the burden
of proof and that there were substantial issues with the evidence submitted, the
Appealed Decision ruled in favour of a ban on Fenerbah9e. The Appealed Decision
failed to take into account the evidence presented by the Appellant that proves that the
Appellant was not guilty of match-fixing, including the witness statements which were
simply ignored by the UEFA Appeals Body.
285. In this respect, Fenerbah9e submits that, "given the complexity of this case and the
volume of evidence, these arguments will merely be summarised for the Panel in these
expedited proceedings" and it refers to certain individual defence statements of the
Fenerbah9e officials accused of match-fixing.
286. Fenerbah9e asserts that the wiretaps as quoted in the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector's
rep01t, the UEFA CDB Decision and the Appealed Decision, were the product of
mistranslation and omission which is reflected in a report filed in these arbitration
proceedings (hereinafter: the "Translation Revision Report"). Fenerbah9e finds that
key portions of the original wiretaps were distorted through these mistranslations and
omissions in the translations provided by the 161h High Criminal Court in Istanbul.
Reliance on these wiretaps is suspect.

287. Furthermore, Fenerbahs;e argues that the context of these wiretaps was often skewed
based on the introductions provided by the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector in his
submissions before UEFA's adjudicatory bodies. The UEFA Disciplinary Inspector
cherry-picked exce1pts fi:om the wiretaps that would make general statements and then
would provide an introductory paragraph that would pmportedly add context which
was not reflected in the quoted exce1pt. According to Fenerbahs;e, this practice
poisoned any altemative interpretation that the UEFA Appeals Body could find. TI1e
UEFA Disciplinary Inspector's submissions contorted the wiretaps in such a way that
it appeared that the conversation was about match-fixing when in fact that was not
what the conversation was about. Also, Fenerbahs;e surmises that the authenticity of
the speaker can be questioned with regard to some of these wiretaps because the
speaker is not necessarily the person on the line.
288. Furthermore, Fenerbahs;e avers that the evidence it relied on during the UEFA
proceedings is supported by documentation that undoubtedly exonerates Fenerbahs;e,
but that this evidence was not even mentioned in the Appealed Decision. Specifically,
the Appellant produced a financial repmi that was prepared by expe1is of the
prosecution during the criminal proceedings. Fenerbahs;e asse1is that this financial
repmi found that there were no illegal or suspicious activities in either Fenerbahs;e's or
the individual officials' financial records. Ultimately, for match-fixing to occur, there
has to be some benefit received by the player who is fixing the match and these
financial records clearly show that no such benefit was ever paid and demonstrate
where all the money received by Fenerbahs;e was actually spent. Fenerbahs;e also
relies on repmis from TFF officials who were present at the games and who found that
no suspicious actions happened on the field in any of these games.
289. UEFA pmpmis that Fenerbahs;e breached miicle 5 of the UEFA DR (2008) on, at
least, three accounts: a) the Appellant itself breached article 50(3) of the UEFA
Statutes and article 2.05 of the UCLR (2011/2012); b) under article 6 and/or miicle 11
of the UEFA DR, the Appellant bears responsibility for the actions of its officials, and
its officials have acted in a way that brings themselves and the Appellant into breach
of articles 5(2)(a), (b), (d) and G) of the UEFA DR; c) the Appellant itself has
provided a false account of its activities when it completed its entry fmm for the
2011/2012 Champions League season, because it did not disclose the involvement in
match-fixing.
290. With reference to CAS 2010/A/2267, UEFA submits that CAS emphasised that the
critical natrne of maintaining a zero tolerance stance against match-fixing meant that
miicle 5 of the UEFA DR was readily engaged (including in that case by no more than
a failure to repmi). This proposition is also suppmied by CAS 2010/A/2172.
291. UEFA maintains that on the basis of a!iicle 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes in conjunction
with miicle 2.05 and 2.06 of the UCLR it can be concluded that CAS can be
comfortably satisfied that there is a breach on this basis. In fact of course, CAS can be
comfortably satisfied that club officials did indeed act in a way that went far beyond
an incidental involvement, and that on any basis brings them individually and the
Appellant into breach of the above-mentioned provisions.
'Tribunal Arbitn1l clu Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahsoe Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 68
292. UEFA also provided the Panel with a table that gives an overview of Fenerbah9e
officials that have been found to have engaged in activity violating article 50(3) of the
UEFA Statutes, article 5 of the UEFA DR and miicle 2.05 and 2.06 of the UCLR. The
TFF disciplinmy bodies convicted club officials in respect of three of those matches,
and a player and an intermediary in respect of a fourth match. Fenerbah9e officials
have also been convicted by the criminal court of such activity in seven matches (after
Law 6222 cmne into effect) and were found to have been engaged in such activity in
respect of six matches (before Law 6222 specifically made it a crime). The criminal
court's convictions have been fully endorsed by the Supreme Court Prosecutor. UEFA
relies on all this information and evidence in respect of all these matches and is fully
entitled to rely on them for the pruposes of the present disciplinary proceedings
against the Appellant. "In the interest of efficiency and brevity, and entirely without
prejudice to UEFA 's continued reliance on all the matches, UEFA will develop its
submissions in relation to four particular examples. " These four matches are
highlighted in the following table provided by UEFA:

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar Kultibti v. UEFA- Page 69
Prosecutor
ChargeA(1)
AzY,IE,CT
Manisaspor
vs.
Trabzonspor
21102111
vs.
Lose
Kasimpasa
26102/11
vs.
bonus
Istanbul BB
06103/11
Trabzonspor
20103/11
vs.
Fenerbahce
09/04111
Charge
Criminal
AzY,IE,A1Y
of
IEandMM of
disciplinary
offence
AzY
Aziz Yildirim
I President

IE
MM
TY
CT
AIY
Ilhan Ek~ioglu
Mehmet ~ekip Mosturoglu
Tamer Yelkovan
Cemil Turban
Alaeddin Yildirim
Board member
Vice-President
Finance Director
Manager
Board member
(ii) Tlte findings of the Panel

293. Before turning its attention to the individual matches, the Panel deems it important to
assess certain of these general issues.
294. In respect of Fenerbahye's allegation that the wiretaps relied on by UEFA provide
inconect or flawed infotmation, the Panel observes that the Translation Revision
Report provided by Fenerbahye concludes that "we are of the opinion that the original
translation is of a very bad quality from a linguistic perspective, contains numerous
accuracy [sic] and grammar errors, and reflects a ve1y poor knowledge of English on
the part of the translator(s), warranting translation from scratch since many parts of
the translation are beyond correction". The Panel aclmowledges the conclusion in the
Translation Revision Report regarding the quality of the translations; nevettheless the
Panel finds that if no specific objections to the translations are made, the translations
of the wiretaps shall be considered accurate. However, if specific objections are made
by the Appellant, the Panel will take such objections into account in its analysis. The
Panel will therefore critically assess the content of the wiretaps in respect of the
individual matches, however, the Panel wishes to clarify already beforehand that the
finding that the content of a wiretap has been inconectly translated, does not mean
that all the wiretaps should be neglected as evidence; each wiretap will be assessed on
its credibility. In this respect, the Panel deems it impmtant that the original Turkish
wiretaps were taken into account as evidence by the TFF Ethics Committee, the TFF
PFDC, the TFF Board of Appeals and the 1dh High Criminal Comt in Istanbul.
Regarding the alleged cheny-picking of the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector of the
excerpts of the wiretaps, the Panel observes that Fenerbah9e also chen'Y-picked certain
excerpts of the wiretaps in order to prove that they were flawed.
295._ The Panel will also certainly take into account the evidence produced by Fenerbahye
that was allegedly neglected tluoughout the UEFA proceedings. By doing so, the
Panel is confident that it repairs any procedural flaws that might have occurred
throughout the proceedings before the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body.
296. The Panel observes that Fenerbah9e refers to the individual defences of some of its
officials in the disciplinary proceedings before the UEFA CDB and summarised their
arguments in its written submissions in the present arbitration proceedings. In view of
this, the Panel will mainly rely on the summaries prepared by Fenerbahye and will
only address the individual defences if necessary.
297. The Panel observes that UEFA chose to focus on only four of the five matches for
which Fenerbahye was specifically convicted by the UEFA CDB. As such, the Panel
finds that it only has the duty to assess these four matches. Any accusations made in
respect of additional matches are disregarded. Consequently, and although both the
UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body considered Fenerbahye guilty of fixing the
match between KarabUkspor and Fenerbah9e that was played on 8 May 2011, the
'Tribunal Arbitral c!u Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spor Kultibii v. UEFA- Page 71
Panel finds that it is not in a position to assess this match because the facts of this
match are disputed and UEFA failed to substantiate its allegations in respect of this
match.
298. The Panel finds that the financial reports provided by Fenerbahye are in principle of
limited relevance to the matter at stake. As consistently pointed out in CAS
jurisprndence "corruption is, by nature, concealed as the parties involved will seek to
use evasive means to ensure that they leave no trail of their wrongdoing" (CAS
2010/A/2172, 70). The fact that the financial records show that no money has been
transferred to the official accounts does not mean that no money could have been
transferred to unofficial accounts, or more likely in cash.
299. The Panel also finds that the match reports redacted by the TFF officials at the
relevant games are of limited importance. The fact that these TFF officials did not
observe any suspicious actions on the pitch does not constitute proof that no matchfixing occmTed. Not every instance of bad or undetperformance of a player necessarily
means that a match was fixed. Football, by its very nature, is a game where mistakes
occur. What is at stake here is whether officials of Fenerbahye were involved in
match-fixing activities, either directly or indirectly. Instead, whether matches were
actually fixed is not relevant in this respect. The fact that a specific player of the
opposing team played badly, is no evidence in itself that this player was involved in
match-fixing. For example, if a player is offered money in order not to score in a
specific game, this does not necessarily mean that he would have to play badly.
Match-fixing can present itself in many ways. An attempt to fix a match typically
occurs before the match actually takes place; the performance in the game is only the
result of match-fixing. As such, no evidence is required that the match was actually
influenced.
300. With respect to UEFA's allegation that Fenerbahye as an entity violated article 5 of
the UEFA DR, the Panel finds that this is not the case. A legal entity can only be held
liable for match-fixing through actions of persons representing or acting on behalf of
the legal entity, i.e. its officials. As the Panel already indicated that under the
applicable UEFA regulations the Appellant did not commit a disciplinary infi"ingement
by improperly filling in the UEFA Admission Form in order to participate in the
2011/2012 season of the UEFA Champions League, the only basis for sanctioning
Fenerbahye as a club is its liability for the actions of its officials.
301. The Panel observes that it remained undisputed by the parties that Mr Aziz Ytldmm,
President, Mr Ek~ioglu, Executive Committee member, Mr Mehmet $ekip
Mosturoglu, Vice-President, Mr Tamer Yelkovan, Finance Director, Mr Cemil
Tmhan, Manager, and Mr Alaeddin Yrldmm, Executive Committee member, were
officials of Fenerbahye.
302. Taldng into account the above, the Panel will now assess whether these officials of
Fenerbahye were involved in fixing the four matches specifically relied on by UEFA
in its Answer submitted to the CAS in these appeal arbitration proceedings.
iii.
Gen~lerbirligi
SK v. Fenerbah~e (7 March 2011)
303. The Appealed Decision states insofar:
'T'ribunal Arbitral clu Sport
"The Appeals Body is satisfied that the Executive Committee member of

Fenerbah9e SK Mr Ek:;ioglu had played a direct role in fixing the match
Gen9lerbirligi vs. Fenerbah9e played on 7 March 2011 of the 2010/2011 Turkish
Super Lig. Numerous evidentiary elements support this conclusion, notably those
contained in the Police Digest, the Ethics committee report, the decision of the
TFF disciplinary bodies and the decision of the l61h High criminal court. "
(i)
304. Fenerbahye submits that the UEFA Appeals Body based these conclusions on the
Police Digest, the Ethics Committee Repo1t, the decision of the TFF disciplinary
bodies and the decision of the 16th High Criminal Comt in Istanbul and contends that
the Appealed Decision failed to i) name any players to whom payments have been
allegedly made to; ii) the amount of these alleged payments; and/or iii) any other
allegedly offered incentive bonuses.
305. Based on the previous investigations by the TFF and the 16th High Criminal Comt in
Istanbul, Fenerbah9e submits that it can only surmise who these players could be.
From the indictment before the 16th High Criminal Comt it can be derived that there
was not enough evidence to indict nine players of Genylerbirligi, these players were
thus not accused of match fixing. The only player of Genylerbirligi accused of matchfixing by the 16th High Criminal Comt regarding this match was Mr Serdar Kulbilge,
the goalkeeper of Genylerbirligi.
306. Fenerbah9e assumes that the allegations in respect of Mr Kulbilge were likely based
on wiretaps in which Mr Ek~ioglu, Executive Committee member ofFenerbahye, asks
Mr Tamer Yelkovan, Fenerbah9e's financial manager, for money - which was
allegedly used for match-fixing - and the conversation between Mr Oztiirk,
goalkeeper trainer of Fenerbah9e, and Mr Kulbilge, who used to keep close contact
with Mr Oztiirk when Mr Kulbilge played for Fenerbah9e in the past.
307. Regarding the allegations against Mr Ekioglu, Fenerbah9e submits that Mr Ekioglu
testified that he had previously loaned Fenerbah9e some money to pay player taxes.
This conversation was not recorded by the police. The request to the financial manager
was merely concerning the repayment of his loan. Mr Ekioglu then used this money
to pay for a construction project for Fenerbahye. All ofthese transactions are reflected
in the financial records submitted by Mr Ekioglu as part of his defence.
308. In respect of Mr Kulbilge, Fenerbah9e submits that he was a fmmer goalkeeper of
Fenerbahye and that he worked llllder the tutelage of Mr Oztiirk for four years. Both
testified that they became fiiends during this period. In 2008, both of them left
Fenerbahye. While Mr Kulbilge was able to find a job as a goalkeeper, Mr Oztiirk was
unable to find new employment. Struggling with his finances, Mr Oztiirk was able to
obtain a loan from his fiiend, Mr Kulbilge, to sustain him during these rough times.
Subsequently, Mr Oztiirk was rehired by Fenerbah9e and was working on paying off
his debt to Mr Kulbilge. He repaid this debt in two instalments: 5,000 Turkish Lira
(TRY) (EUR 2,000) on 22 March 2011 and the remaining TRY 6,000 (EUR 2,200) on
5 September 2011. Based on this, Fenerbahye submits that the only payments made to
a Genylerbirligi player was a payment owed on a debt among friends, not for matchfixing as alleged in the Appealed Decision. Additionally, Fenerbah9e submits that the

payment of EUR 4,200 for a SUper Lig player cannot seriously be considered as an
indication of match-fixing. During the hearing before CAS, Fenerbahs:e further
submitted that Mr Kulbilge was not convicted for match-fixing by the Istanbul 16th
High Criminal Court.
309. Finally, Fenerbahs:e refers to the witness testimony of Mr Orhan ~am, captain of
Gens:lerbirligi, who stated that he did not hear of any match-fixing by any of the
players.
310. UEFA follows the conclusions reached by the TFF Ethics Committee Report, the
disciplinary decisions of the TFF in first instance and appeal and the decision of the
161h High Criminal Court in Istanbul.
311. In respect of the conclusions of the 16th High Criminal Cornt in Istanbul, UEFA
submits that the conclusion was not that there was no match-fixing. Instead, the
finding was that there was an attempt of match-fixing, but that these actions predated
the enhy into force of the Law incriminating such offence.
312. UEFA submits the following account of facts related to this match:
"Aziz Y1ldmm gave instructions to jlhan Elcyioglu and agent Mehmet $en to have
Genr;lerbirligi Sports Club executives order their players to play badly.
On 1 March 2011, jlhan Yuksel Ekijioglu met the agent Dogan Ercan. At this
meeting Dogan Ercan told him that he has agreed with certain players from
Genr;lerbirligi to fix the match. The next day on 2 March 2011, jlhan Yilksel
Eki;ioglu reported the match fixing to Aziz Y!ldmm. On 5 March 2011, jlhan Yilksel
Eki;ioglu delivered the money to Dogan Ercan, which shall be distributed to the
players after the match. Dogan Ercan contacted Zafer Onder lpek who is the club
manager of Genr;lerbirligi.
In addition, Mehmet $en continued his activities to influence the match result. He
informs jlhan Yuksel Eki;ioglu about team squad of Genr;lerbirligi. Furthermore, he
contacted Serdar Kulbilge (goalkeeper of Genr;lerbirligi) through assistant coach
of Genr;lerbirligi Cengiz Demirel and Zafer Onder lpek who was the manager of
Genr;lerbirligi club and made a deal to pay him in return offavour of Fenerbahr;e.
At the same time prior to the competition they promised the goal keeper Serdar
Kulbilge that he would be transferred to Fenerbahr;e at the end of the season.
On 07.03.2011 at 20.00, the Genr;lerbirligi- Fenerbahr;e match began; the first
half ended as 2-2 draw; then llhan Yiiksel Ekijioglu called Dogan Ercan and said
that the players were better than expected and he warned him. The end result was
Genr;lerbirligi: 2 - Fenerbahr;e: 4. Genr;lerbirligi goalkeeper Serdar Kulbilge was
the goalkeeper in the match. Howeve1~ after the match Aziz Y1ldmm demands
return of the 100.000 USD because the Genr;lerbirligi players played well.
On 16 March 2011, Cengiz Demirel and jlhan Yiiksel Ekijioglu met to solve the
conflict related to the players' good performance at the match. Cengiz Demirel
accepted the non-payment and they agreed upon a payment only to goalkeeper
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbalwe Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 74
Serdar Kulbilge. The money was transferred to Serdar Kulbilge 's with the
mediation ofFenerbahr;e goalkeeper coach Murat Ozturk. "
313. Taking into account the above, the Panel now tmns its attention to the specific
evidence provided by UEFA in respect of the fixing of the match between
Gen9lerbirligi and Fenerbah9e by Fenerbah9e officials.
314. The Panel observes that it is not disputed by Fenerbah9e that Mr Ek~ioglu received
money from Fenerbah9e and that Mr Kulbilge received money from Mr Oztiirk,
Fenerbah9e however disagrees with UEFA's explanation that these payments were
related to match-fixing and submits that these payments were respectively related to a
personal loan/construction project ofMr Ek~ioglu and a personal loan ofMr Kulbilge.
315. In respect of UEFA's theory, the Panel finds it important to paraphrase cetiain
wiretaps relied on by UEFA and to assess the conclusions drawn therefiom.
316. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ercan and Mr
Ek~ioglu on 25 February 2011 at 18:04 hour:
Dogan Ercan: "I'm fine, I'm at the Wow hotel, they are at the training camp, well
you ... I've spoken to them ... then the other one's got three cards understand, if he
is shown a card, no need to talk isn't that right. "
ilhan Ytiksel Ek~ioglu: "So he shouldn't be shown a card then. "
317. The Panel observes that it is not disputed that Mr Kulbilge had three yellow cards at
the moment of the telephone call and that a player in the Turkish Super Lig is
automatically suspended for one match when he records four yellow cards throughout
the same season. It is also not disputed that Gen9lerbirligi was scheduled to play
against Ankaragticti on 26 February 2011, i.e. the day after the above-mentioned
telephone call.
318. From these factual circumstances and also taking into account the following wiretaps,
the Panel concludes that Mr Ercan and Mr Ek~ioglu were talking about Mr Kulbilge
and that they did not consider it necessary to talk to Mr Kulbilge in case he would be
shown a card in the match between Gen9lerbirligi and Ankaragticti scheduled for 26
Februmy 2011.
319. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ercan and M:r
Ek~ioglu on 26 February 2011 at 16:37 hour:
Dogan Ercan: "The match finished 4-2."

ilhan Ytiksel Ek~ioglu: "Okay, yellow card, nay yellow cards."
Dogan Ercan: "No, not. " .
ilhan Ytiksel Ek~ioglu: "Okay then good "

320. At the occasion of the heming, Mr Ek~ioglu confirmed that there would be no reason
to talk to Mr Kulbilge if he would be shown another yellow card and would thus not
play against Fenerbah9e. There were rumours that Trabzonspor would have attempted
to pay players of Genylerbirligi. Mr Ek~ioglu stated that he was pleased that Mr
Kulbilge would play against Fenerbahye because if Mr Kulbilge would have received
such offer from Trabzonspor he would let the President of Genylerbirligi know. He
was happy that the second goalkeeper of Genylerbirligi would not play.
321. The Panel is comfmiably satisfied that this telephone call took place after the end of
the match between Genylerbirligi and Ankaragticii, which started at 14:00 on 26
Febmary 2011 and that the yellow cards were discussed because of their previous
conversation about Mr Kulbilge. The Panel finds it highly suspicious that Mr Ek~ioglu
was happy with the fact that Mr Kulbilge would be eligible to play against Fenerbahye
on 7 March 2011. Normally, it could be expected fiom Fenerbah9e that it would be
pleased with the fact that the first goalkeeper of an opponent is suspended. The Panel
is not convinced by the theory adduced by Mr Ek~ioglu in this respect, but adheres
with the theory put fmward by UEFA.
322. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr
Yelkovan on 28 Febmary 2011 at 10:07 hour:
tlhan Ytiksel Ek~ioglu: "So what do we do now any news, ... you mentioned
something remember, .. .I mean are there any news anything, he phoned me
yesterday to ask if I had things to do with him, I said no I didn't, he is probably
leaving today. "
Tamer Yelkovan: "Well how much do we owe to them."
!!han Ytiksel Ek~ioglu: "Weill need to get 250 and go to err."
Tamer Yelkovan: "We paid another 250 didn't we but biz. "
!!han Ytikse] Ek~ioglu: "We are deleting the ones in the past though, ... look err
knows about it, that ... you understand who don't you, ... we'll speak later."
323. At the occasion of the hearing, Mr Ek~ioglu stated that the USD 250,000 was related
to a construction project of Fenerbah9e. Mr Ek~ioglu was allegedly responsible for all
the construction projects of Fenerbah9e, which includes also the projects of the other
Olympic branches ofFenerbah9e that are not related to football.
324. The Panel finds the theory adduced by Mr Ek~ioglu rather unlikely. No evidence has
been provided whatsoever to prove that Mr Ek~ioglu was indeed working on a
construction project for Fenerbah9e at that moment and needed USD 250,000 for this
project. In the absence of fmiher evidence having been provided to substantiate the
theory of Mr Ek~ioglu, the Panel is not convinced that this is truly what happened,
particularly because it would have been rather easy to submit such evidence to the
Panel, if existent.
325. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Aziz Y1ldmm
and Mr Ek~ioglu on 28 February 2011 at 13:08 hour:

Aziz Y1ldmm: ''I'm going to the airport, ... I'm coming back tomorrow evening,
take care of it it is of vital importance. "
ilhan Yiiksel El~ioglu: "I phoned err, would you please talk to him, I told you
something remember, ... to Tamer, .. .I told you I needed to take some part of it
remember. "
Aziz Y1ldmm: "Okay fine I'll tell him."
ilhan Yiiksel El~ioglu: "I remembered him in the morning but he wouldn't do
anything without informing you. "
326. At the occasion of the hearing, Mr Ek~ioglu testified that the first part of this
conversation was about an injured player and that it was of vital importance that he
would be able to play against Genylerbirligi. The second part of the conversation was
about the money Mr Ek~ioglu was to receive fi'Dm Mr Yelkovan.
327. The Panel is not convinced that this conversation can be separated in two distinct
subjects of conversation. Indeed, it appears that receiving the money from Mr
Y elkovan was related to a visit of vital importance.
328. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Aziz Y!ldmm
and Mr Yelkovan on 28 Febrnary 2011 at 13:09 hour:
Aziz Y1ldmm: "jlhan will ask something from you, ... he will phone you, he spoke
to you didn't he, ... HE WILL TAKE A TRIP TODAY OKAY, ... you speak with him,
TRY TO TAKE CARE OF IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH "
Tamer Yelkovan: "Okay my chairman, ... Semih would talk to you but, ... HE SAID
IOO% THIS TIME LIKE THE OTHER ONES SAID BUT, ... he said he wouldn't
do anything if it's not okay. "
Aziz YJldmm: "We've already given and not taken it back, have we, ... ERR IF
IT'S 100%, TELL HIM TO GIVE AND DO WHAT IS NECESSARY."
329. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Yelkovan and Mr
Ek~ioglu on 28 Febmary 2011 at 13:38 hour:
Tamer Yelkovan: "Boss did you ask for 250 Turkish lira for the taxes ofplayers
or what."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "yes, yes err, ... it is urgent I'm going in the evening, I
need take it and go, ... yeah not lira but American, ... you will you do anything."
Tamer Yelkovan: "Well I've got 150 of it and I am looking for 100."
330. At the occasion of the hearing, Mr Ek~ioglu testified that this conversation had
nothing to do with taxes, but that he refened to taxes in order for Mr Yelkovan to
understand that he was talking about premiums for football players. Also, Mr Ek~ioglu
testified that the reference to "take it and go" concerned authorisation documents of

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah<;e Spar Kuhibii v. UEFA- Page 77
two Swedish football players; this is allegedly what Mr Yelkovan had to give to Mr
Ek~ioglu.
331. Although confirmed by both Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Yelkovan, the Panel finds it rather
unlikely that the reference to an amount, which is understood to be USD 250,000, in
the conversation between Mr E~ioglu and Mr Yelkovan on 28 Februaty 2011 at
10:07 hour was about a construction project and that the conversation at 13:38 hour of
the same day between the satne persons was about premiums for football players or
taxes. The Panel observes that there are also certain inconsistencies between the
testimonies of Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Y elkovan aud the arguments submitted by
Fenerbahye. In the absence of any credible and consistent explanation having been
adduced by Fenerbahye as to why Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Yelkovan were speaking about
two different subjects, although both subjects concemed a payment of USD 250,000
within such a short timeframe, the Panel finds the explanation adduced rather unlikely.
332. Fenerbah<;e submits that it appears from the above conversation that this money would
be used to pay taxes of players and that Mr Ek~ioglu would take care of this during a
trip. It allegedly also becomes clear fiom these conversations that Mr Yelkovan
needed the authorisation of Mr Aziz Yildmm in order to give the requested amount to
Mr Ek~ioglu.
333. The Panel has serious doubts whether this money was indeed used in order to pay
player taxes or premiums for football players, particularly because player taxes would
normally be paid in Turkish Lira and not in US Dollars. The Panel finds it rather
strange that reference was made to taxes; while Mr Ek~ioglu was actually referring to
premiums for football players. Insofar as the money was related to player taxes, the
Panel finds it vety peculiar that Mr Ek~ioglu needed to "take it and go", if this money
was indeed intended for taxes of players there would be no need to take the money, a
banlc transfer of the money would be sufficient.
334. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Aziz Ytldmm
attd Mr Ek~ioglu on 2 March 2011 at 15:55 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I'm on the other side."
Aziz Ytldmm: "We'll talk in the morning, that man is coming, I'll talk to you
before he arrives, how is eve1ything. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Everything is just jine ... we have plowed [sic] all the 3
fields, ... I hope it will rain and our crops will grow. "
Aziz Ytldmm: "Trabzonspor went a little bit err panicked, they've got panicked
today, I've talked to Siileyman today, he sounded like a dead man ... they are
disturbed because we won't respond though. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "at the moment it's okay my chairman now .. it's quite
fine. ,
335. UEFA purports that the reference to ploughing the fields is a reference to match-fixing
steps; the attempt had been made to influence players, and it remained to be seen

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spor Kullibli v. UEFA- Page 78
whether the attempts would come to fruition. If there had been any legitimate subject,
it would not have needed to be discussed cryptically.
336. The Panel observes that it was concluded in the Police Digest that the reference to
ploughing the fields refers to influencing the matches of K.ayserispor, Bursaspor and
Trabzonspor, who were in the first ranks of the Turkish Siiper Lig together with
Fenerbah9e, in the 24th week of the league.
337. As such, it is not clear to the Panel whether the sentence "we have plowed [sic] all the
three fields" refers to an attempt to fix the match between Genylerbirligi and
Fenerbah9e or whether it refers to match-fixing attempts in the matches of
Fenerbah9e's competitors, the Panel has however no doubt in concluding that this
reference to "ploughing the fields" was intended cryptically and referred to illegal
conduct. The Panel adheres with UEFA' s position that ifthere had been a legitimate
subject to discuss, it would have been made clear what that subject was, instead of
speaking cryptically. The Panel has no hesitation in establishing that this conversation,
in combination with the findings above, is a clear indication that Mr ilhan Yiiksel
Ek~ioglu was involved in possible illegal conduct with the lmowledge of Mr Aziz
Y1ldmm.
Ek~ioglu on 2 March 20 II at 18: 15 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Now you this is okay isn't it you told me the err Murat. "
Dogan Ercan: "Hurit, and Serkan
if he plays.
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Serlmn, Mehmet"

Dogan Ere an: "Mehmet Akgiin"
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Yeah Hurit"
Dogan Ercan: "But maybe he wouldn't let him play, maybe he would let Orhan
play."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Hurit, Harpuzi, Aykut okay"
Dogan Ercan: "If Jedinak plays too, we'll talk to Jedinak okay ... I'm coming over
aren't I"
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "You come over, I'll tell them that I talked to them okay
I'm telling you now, I'll tell them it is okay. "
Dogan Ercan: "You've already talked to them why is he telling lies why would we
make the thing into err .. .! haven't talked to Golkipinla [goalkeeper] yet, I'm
telling you, ... ifyou say go and talk I'll go and talk on Saturday. "
339. The Panel observes that all the names of the players that are mentioned in this
conversation are players of Gen9lerbirligi. It concerns Mr Hur~ut Meri9, Mr Serkan
<;::alik, Mr Mehmet Akgiin, Mr Orhan $am, Mr Labinot Harbuzi, Mr Aykut Demir and

Mr Michael Jedinak. The Panel further understands that Mr Ercan would talk to the
goalkeeper of Gen9lerbirligi if Mr Ekioglu so desired. The Panel finds it very
peculiar that Mr Ercan would only talk to players of Gen9lerbirligi that were going to
play against Fenerbah9e ("if Jedinakplays too, we'll talk to Jedinak okay") and that
Mr Ekioglu was informed about this. The Panel considers this to be an indication that
cetiain Gen9lerbirligi players were approached by Mr Ercan in order to talk to them.
340. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Zafer Onder ipek,
General Manager of Genylerbirligi, and Mr Ercan on 5 March 2011 at 19:39 hour:
Zafer Onder ipek: "Dogan they say 100 euro plus VAT though. "
Dogan Ercan: "I then save it I'm going tomorrow, ... you deal with the meeting of
the chairman it's important, yeah I'm going with the documents, you understand "
341. During the hearing, Fenerbah9e argued that this conversation is put in UEFA's
submission because they spoke about money. Although UEFA made the impression as
if this money was related to match-fixing, Fenerbah9e submits that it was related to
the price of a hotel and breakfast. This would explain the reference to EUR 100 plus
VAT.
342. The Panel adheres with Fenerbalt9e in this respect. Although no evidence has been
provided that indeed an amount of EUR 100 plus VAT was spent on a hotel, the Panel
deems this to be a credible explanation. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel also
took into account that in the remainder of the wiretaps reference is made to an amount
of USD 100,000 and not EUR 100,000. Consequently, the Panel will exclude this
wiretap from the evidence provided by UEFA.
343. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ekioglu and Mr
Ercan on 6 March 2011 at 19:59 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "Have you taken care ofyour business today."
Dogan Ercan: "I talked everything was fine I watched the training ... we'll talk
when I arrive. "
Ekioglu on 6 March 2011 at 22: 17 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "I'll tell you in this way, you say to me that err okay all
the things I've said, the things you've said to me. "
Dogan Ercan: "So the things I've said are okay but it will be certain tomorrow. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "You come over here in the morning. "
Dogan Ercan: "18 people are certain I mean who which one ... if you say to me to
call you err ifyou tell me to go I'll go then understand "
345. The Panel understands from these conversations that the reason why Mr Ercan was
going to talk with the players was accomplished, although it would only be cetiain

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs;e SporKuliibii v. UEFA- Page 80
"tomorrow". The Panel therefore understands that the attempt to involve the players
in the illegal conduct was successful.
346. On 7 March 2011, Fenerbah<;e played the match against Gen<;lerbirligi. In the first half
of the match Fenerbah<;e scored two goals, after which Gen<;lerbirligi also scored two
goals. The score at half time was thus 2-2.
347. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between someone called
Dogan and Mr YJ!dmm on 7 March 2011 at 17:36 hour:
Person (Dogan): "my chairman we got croaked last night ... "
Aziz YJ!dmm: "no worries. "
Person (Dogan): "he says no worries ... he mentions of the all of it me I mean I'm
thinking but he says no worries for tonight. "
348. During the hearing, Fenerbah<;e argued that this person was not Mr Dogan Ercan, but a
coordinator. Considering the objection of Fenerbah<;e and the fact that UEFA is not
sure whether this person was indeed Mr Dogan Ercan, the Panel finds that this wiretap
must be excluded fiom the evidence submitted by UEFA.
~en, intermediary, that allegedly negotiated with Mr Kulbilge on behalf of Mr
Ek~ioglu on 7 March 2011 at 21:01 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Why don't you call err. "
Mehmet ~en: "I have, I have never seen such a thing before if you only watch on
tv you wouldn't believe it such a shame after 2-0 then we conceded 2 goals, ... I
have called I have I mean I'd say something though he won't stretch his legs, the
names I told 2 or 3 of them, ... I have called I have before you did but why
shouldn't I call. "
350. The following text message was sent by Mr Ek~ioglu to Mr Ercan on 7 March 2011 at
21:13 hour:
351. UEFA adduces that it should be concluded from this wiretap that there would have
been no reason for Mr ~en to have been asked to make a call to someone in the middle
of the match other than to seek to ensure that the bribes were acted upon. Similarly,
there would have been no other reason for Mr Ek~ioglu also texting his surprise to Mr
Ercan, in the way that he did, unless he was asking why the bribes were not acted
upon.
352. The Panel is somewhat more cautious in its conclusions in respect of the wiretap.
Although the telephone call raises serious doubts as to the subject of the conversation
between Mr Ek~ioglu and the player of Fenerbah<;e, the Panel finds that the content of
the wiretap is not clear enough to draw any conclusion fiom this conversation.
Tribunal Arbitr~l du Sj)Ort

Neve1iheless, the Panel finds the text message to be an indication that Mr Ek~ioglu
expected something to happen during the match, but that apparently did not occur. The
Panel finds that the most logical conclusion that can be drawn from all the above is
that Mr Ek~ioglu expected the Genc;lerbirligi players to play badly in order for
Fenerbahc;e to win the match.
Ek~ioglu on 8 March 2011 at 11:29 hour:
ilhan Yuksel Ek~ioglu: "Yeah, I'm glad you've phoned. "
Dogan Ercan: "jlhan I'm coming over brother I can never err nobody, I can't talk
to anybody either you keep reprehending me there as if! as if what ... I don'twant
it, I've told the guys too do you understand .. .! told them to excuse me I was a liar
do you understand I'll come over in the afternoon okay I'll deliver the thing err
okay."
ilhan Yuksel Ek~ioglu: "This has nothing to do with the club I mean I was just
sending some money to Ankara anyway, they come to our company and get it ji-om
you where are you at the moment. "
Dogan Ercan: "I'm gonna send you that now in the afternoon anyway you know
the guys at our place they came back on the bus at night, I gave it to the man who
was with me I also gave the direction ofyour company, they will bring it to you I
mean do you understand I just want to get rid of that thing. "
ilhan Yukse1 Ek~ioglu: "I didn't say anything if you are saying to me that it is
okay and I'm saying it is not, if you push it surely I will argue with you and you
will say that excuse me but it's not okay this time it is not okay, ... none of them is
okay, secondly I told you last week not to tell this anyone it was between us but
what did you do after my word you texted Ali Yzldmm. "
354. The Panel observes that Mr Ercan and Mr Ek~ioglu apparently had some kind of
dispute and that Mr Ercan would deliver something to Mr Ekiog1u's company
through another person.
Kiintek on 8 March 2011 at 11:32 hour:
ilhan Yuksel Ek~ioglu: "Well someone will come to see you at 2 he will say that
Dogan sent him, ... he will bring some money on him, ... he will bring 100
thousands dollars check it properly okay. "
356. The Panel understands from the sequences of the phone calls above that "the thing"
that was discussed between Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Ercan was apparently USD 100,000
and that a representative of Mr Ercan would deliver this amount to Mr Kiintek in the
afternoon of 8 March 2011.

Ya~ar, a man whose role was not clarified by the parties, on 8 March 2011 at 11:39
hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "(. ..) I gave a hundred to be given to him okay ... man you
know the conversation we had in the toilet I've been calling him up since the
morning but his phone is switched off I was gonna say to him to bring it, ... so he
said to me I was yelling at him I said to him I would give him a telling-off but you
need to say to me that 'jlhan I'm so sorry it's not okay this time I am sorry these
are animal workers did not go by the project this and that the concrete was not
poured properly you'll tell them, .. .! said I just took it from you yeah he said no,
no he said on the bus err went to my surprise this crook kept it here it was never
delivered err that thing the money. "
Faruk Ya~ar: "He never took the money to the work site then."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "he said look my brother I have a promise I've made ...
this and that whatever but Ali wouldn't hide it from me would he, he texted me,
look buddy you crook I said why would you get Ali in this."
Faruk Ya~ar: "What about the other work site, will it be the same as this one."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Not with this I'll personally take care of it I don't need
him at all, ... sure, sure you know the worker at the groundwork I mean the one at
the deepest" I'll take care of it with him, with that one."
358. In respect of this wiretap UEFA contends that the reference to conversations after the
match made clear that Mr Ek~ioglu was complaining about what happened at the
match. His reference to the intetmediary Mr Ercan telling him that he was sorry that it
was "not okay this time" and that the "animal workers did not go by the project this
and that the concrete was not poured properly" was a reference to the players not
acting on the bribe. Mr Ya~ar's first question was to ask whether the intetmediary had
paid the bribe. His second question related to another match.
359. The Panel concludes from the above, in accordance with the theory put forwatd by
UEFA, that Mr Ek~ioglu first gave "a hundred to be given to him", which the Panel
understands to be a payment of USD 100,000 to Mr Ercan. This money was
apparently not intended for Mr Ercan himself, but was supposed to be delivered to the
"work site" by Mr Ercan.
360. From all the previous wiretaps the Panel is comfortably satisfied that this "work site"
is a reference to the players that were approached by Mr Ercan on behalf of Mr
Ek~ioglu and that this payment was made in accordance with an agreement to fix the
match between Genylerbirligi and Fenerbahye. As such, the Panel finds that the money
that was transferred to the Genvlerbirligi players in order to fix this match derived
from Fenerbah9e.
361. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Kuath,
intermediary and according to the individual defence of Mr YJldmm a congress
member ofFenerbahye, and Mr Ek~ioglu on 8 March 2011 at 12:20 hour:
Tribunal Arbitral du SjJOtt

ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I said it was such a shame he should have said that 'look
jzhan it didn't go right I am sorry it didn't go right this time', ... I said to him if he
wasn't convinced after this phone call I told him to go Altunizade and tell your
problems there and I told him I did not recommend that at all. "
Ali K1rath: "All these come from the past you know the things like this happened
in the past. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Ali do you know what he used to give to the work sites
what he used to give 700 's, 900 's."
Ali Kuath: "Do you know what footballers of Gen9lerbirligi stated we played for
Trabzon but it didn't go right."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Well it is better never mind ... "
362. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr K1rath and Mr
Ercan on 8 March 2011 at 12:57 hour:
Dogan Ercan: "jlhan was getting smart with me last night ... he worked his a ... s
off I don't care am I the chairman of the team, aren't I, gosh they were struggling
this and that, shouldn't they be struggling anyway Ali, should they be selling the
matches. Ali won't there be anyone then playing against Fenerbah9e, why bother
taking the field then ... they won 4-2 and they were still getting smart."
363. The Panel finds it crucial that a reference is made to "selling matches" in the above
conversation. Although the context of the conversation is not entirely clear to the
Panel, in light of the above mentioned finding that the persons involved were talking
cryptically and that the conversations concerned illegal conduct, the Panel finds that
the reference to selling matches explains the type of illegal conduct discussed. The
general analysis by UEFA of the context of the wiretaps is entirely plausible to the
Panel and the Panel indeed is comfortably satisfied that this is what happened.
364. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Demirel, assistant
coach of Genylerbirligi, and Mr ipek, manager of Genylerbirligi, on 15 March 2011 at
15:36 hour:
Cengiz Demirel: "I've just watched the videos here, ... when we sat down a man
came and sat down opposite us he had something in his hand he was playing with
it he put it in front of him, he was like setting it, it looked like a camera ... then we
stood up and went to the private room then after half an hour I mean after us the
man went out and met two other men. "
Zafer Onder ipek: "Have they got the same err, did you see any vehicles, ... it
looks like a coincidence. "
Cengiz Demirel: "I think we shouldn't get him involved, this stupid already got
panicked, very scared, ... when Serdar started to drive a Polo started to drive right
after Serdar, ... it's the same polo I mean the polo at the club, ... there is something
strange but we can't think of anything, ... let's not make him confused.

Zafer Onder ipek: "Okay"

Cengiz Demirel: "The guys at the club should be alert they should be careful with
someone strange entering in or going out of the club, ... you tell Ali okay?"
365. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Demirel and Mr
Kulbilge on 15 March 2011 at 16:49 hour:
Cengiz Demire1: "I watched the videos there is nothing to worry about he sat
there for a while then he left the place after us, ... there is nothing to worry about
here. "
Serdar Ku1bilge: "Did you get to see the others?"
Cengiz Demirel: "There are no others there is only that man ... then we, you know
we went inside then the man sat for another half an hour then he left ... nothing to
worry about. "
366. From the above wiretaps the Panel concludes that Mr Kulbilge was apparently afraid
of being followed or that they were being spied upon. In this sense, the Panel thus
supports UEFA's theory. However, it remains unclear to the Panel how UEFA came
to the conclusion that Mr Kulbilge received money in exchange for fixing the match
Genylerbirligi vs. Fenerbahye.
3 67. Finally, the following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Kulbilge
and Mr Oztiirk on 30 March 2011 at 21:01 hour:
Serdar Kulbilge: "We'll working together next year."
Murat Oztfuk: "Probably ... any news anyone coming or going. "
Serdar Kulbilge: "Yes. "
Murat Oztiirk: "Good then okay I can't talk to you on the phone for your
information, ... you understand the thing I said don't you, ... you got the thing !told
you last week didn't you. "
Serdar Kulbilge: "Yeah I did my brother. "
Murat Oztiirk: "But there is something left. "
Serdar Kulbilge: "That's not a problem, no problem at all."
Murat Oztiirk: "We'll send the rest of it err next week before the league finishes ...
then we'll give our blessing. "
Serdar Kulbilge: "[Serdar Kulbilge apparently said that his club asked him to sign
and talked about it for a while and then continued] may 8 weeks pass in the best
way because they said no to throw away. "

Murat Oztiirk:
for a while. "
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar Kullibli v. UEFA- Page 85
"If they say not to throw away then you don't throw away
... wait
Serder Kulbilge: "You know that Ek~i Ek:ji [he talked about the transfer offer by
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu]."
368. UEFA purported that Mr K.ulbilge was allegedly promised a transfer to Fenerbah9e in
the next football season. The Panel is not convinced that this was indeed promised to
Mr K.ulbilge on the basis of the evidence at its disposal; there is no evidence in the file
supporting such proposition.
369. In view of all the above and although the Panel is not entirely convinced of every
single aspect of UEFA's theory, particularly whether Mr K.ulbilge actually received
fees in order to fix the match against Fenerbah9e, the Panel nevettheless has no
hesitation in coming to the general conclusion that Mr Ek~ioglu, an official of
Fenerbah9e, attempted to fix the match between Fenerbah9e and Genylerbirligi
through the services of Mr Ercan.
370. Despite the fact that cettain wiretaps were excluded from the evidence submitted by
UEFA, the Panel comes to the conclusion that UEFA convinced the Panel to its
comfortable satisfaction that at least one ofFenerbalwe's officials attempted to fix this
patticular match.
371. In coming to this conclusion the Panel finds it impottant that the explanations adduced
by Fenerbah9e are rather unlikely. In particular, the Panel finds that there are several
inconsistencies in Fenerbalt9e's theory that impair the credibility of Fenerbalt9e's
theory as a whole. In addition to the above-mentioned inconsistencies, the Panel
wishes to point out that Fenerbah9e explained during the hearing that it is common
practise in Turkey that contracts are not concluded in Turkish Lira but in Euro or US
Dollar, however, the Panel finds it strange that a personal loan that was allegedly
granted by Mr Oztiirk in order to "sustain [Mr Kulbilge] during these rough times"
was made in a foreign CU!Tency. If the loan was made in order to buy food, pay rent or
other basic monthly expenses, this loan would most likely have been granted in the
currency in which these expenses should be paid. Also, whereas F enerbah9e submitted
in its written submissions that the loan of Mr Oztlirk to Mr K.ulbilge would be paid
back in two instalments, Mr Oztiirk clarified during his testimony at the hearing that
the debt would be paid back in tluee instalments.
372. Insofar as Fenerbah9e contends that a total amount of USD 500,000 was given to Mr
Ek~ioglu, consisting of an amount of USD 250,000 for a construction project of
Fenerbalt9e and an amount of USD 250,000 for player premiums, the Panel finds that
this is not a credible explanation in the absence of any documentary evidence having
been submitted in this respect. The Panel is also not convinced by the witness
statements of Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Yelkovan.
373. The Panel noted that this match took place before the entry into force of the Turldsh
law 6222 on 14 April 2011 and that this was the reason for the 16th High Criminal
Court oflstanbul to acquit the Fenerbah9e officials in respect of this match. This Panel
does however not apply the Turkish law 6222, but the UEFA DR (2008). As there is
no doubt that match-fixing was already incriminated in the UEFA DR on 7 March
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahsoe Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 86
2011, the Panel finds that the reasoning of the 16th High Criminal Court actually
supports the finding of the Panel that F enerbahc;:e officials attempted to fix this match.
374. Consequently, in light of all the above, the Panel finds that UEFA established to the
comfmiable satisfaction of the Panel that Fenerbahc;:e, tluough the actions of at least
one of its officials, attempted to fix the match that took place on 7 March 2011
between Fenerbahc;:e and Genc;:lerbirligi.
iv.
Fenerbah~;e
v. IBB Spor (1 May 2011)
375. In the Appealed Decision the UEFA Appeals Body ruled that:
"In view of all the elements of the case file and having examined the Police digest
and the 161h High criminal court decision, the Appeals Body is satisfied that the
President of Fenerbah9e Sf(, Mr Ylidmm, concluded match fixing activities in
regard to the match Fenerbah9e vs. IBB Spar, played I May 2011."
376. Fenerbahc;:e submits that the Appealed Decision failed to name to which players the
payments were made and the amount of the payments. Fenerbahc;:e avers that it can
only surmise who these players are. The 16th High Criminal Court in Istanbul only
determined that Mr ibrahim Akin, player of IBB Spar, was guilty. Fenerbahc;:e
assumes that this conclusion is likely based on wiretaps between Mr Akin and Mr
Yusuf Turanlt, player agent of Mr Akin, as well as with Mr Alunet Kangi, spiritual
leader (Hodja) ofMr Akin.
377. Fenerbahc;:e purports that Mr Turanh testified that the conversation between Mr Akin
and himself about a payment of USD 100,000 did not concern a match-fixing offer,
but was related to a house Mr Akin was buying in Cyprus from the mother of Mr
Turanh. Mr Turanlt also testified that he and Mr Akin had frequently visited casinos
when they worked together. Mr Akin's affinity for gambling is not reflected in the
wiretaps.
378. During the hearing before CAS, Fenerbahc;:e argued that this match was not fixed in
light of the definition of match-fixing in article !1 of!aw 6222 in Turkey. If it cannot
be determined by which board member ofFenerbahc;:e the money was sent,.to whom it
was sent and in which way, no match-fixing offence can be established according to
Turkish law, not even an attempt.
379. UEFA relies on the following description in order to explain the different factual
circumstances:
"At the end of the 301h week of Super League, the teams Fenerbah9e and
Trabzonspor were alone in the championship race. Trabzonspor would be the
champion if Fenerbah9e lost points in four competitions left and Trabzonspor won
all of the competitions.
The High Criminal Court has established that prior to the competition between
Fenerbah9e and [IBB Spar], Aziz Ytldmm called Billent jbrahim j~9en and Ahmet

t;:elebi to his office to give instructions related to match-fixing activities in the

said match. Biilent jbrahim j99en, Ahmet t;:elebi and Abdullah Baak went to
Fenerbah9e club's facilities and met Aziz Y1ldmm. This action was determined as
a result of physical pursuit studies. According to wiretapping records, jzhan
Yiiksel Ekioglu was also present during the meeting.
Right after the meeting, Ahmet t;:elebi phoned Yusuf Turanh and required an
urgent meeting. On the same day YusufTuranll and Abdullah Baak met at a cafe
called Suadiye Cafe. After the persons left the place, YusufTuranh phoned [IBB
Spar] player Iskender Aim and obtained iriformation about the line-up who would
play against Fenerbah9e. Later he contacted [IBB Spar] player jbrahim Akin and
told him that he wants to meet. The meeting between jbrahim Akin and Yusuf
Turanh was hold [sic] on the same day at night.
Right after the meeting, jbrahim Aldn called a person to whom he has religious
respect and asked whether there is any problem for him to take money for matchfixing. "
380. Below, the Panel will provide an overview of the evidence in the file that the Panel
considers to be the most relevant and will draw conclusions from the diverse wiretaps
smmunding this particular match.
381. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Aziz Yrldmm
and Biilent ibrahim iyen on 25 April 2011 at 14:08 hour:
Aziz Yrldmm: "How are you Biilent. "
Biilent ibrahim iyen: "I'm fine Aziz, how are you. "
Aziz Yrldmm: "You get our Ahmet and bring him to me tomorrow afternoon."
Biilent ibrahim iyen: "Okay ... surname is t;:elebi, isn't it."
Aziz Ylidmm: "Yes, yes get him and come to see me. "
382. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr iyen and Mr
Ahmet <;elebi on 25 April2011 at 14:09 hour:
Biilent ibrahim i9en: "We are going to my brother's place, we are going to a
Brother's place tomorrow afternoon ... "
Ahmet <;elebi: "Are we going to my brother's place"
Biilent ibrahim iven: "No man, it is Aziz brother, ... don't be silly and don't say
anything to anyone. "
383. From the two wiretaps above, the Panel concludes that Mr iyen, intermediary, made
contact with Mr <;elebi, board member of the Turkish football club Sivasspor during

the 2010/2011 football season, on behalf ofMr Y!ldmm, President ofFenerbahye, and
that they were planning a confidential meeting in the aftemoon of 26 April 20 II.
384. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ali Kirath,
intermediaq (and according to the individual defence of Mr Y1ldmm a congress
member of Fenerbah9e), and Mr Abdullah Ba~ak, intermediary, on 26 April 2011 at
16:58 hour:
Abdullali Ba~ak: " ... I'm at the club at the moment. "
Ali Klrath: "What are you doing at the club?"
Abdullah Ba~ak: "I've got things to do at the club, ilhan 's just got out, I've been
with the chairman, I've just got out, Bulen! abi, Ahmet C::elebi, ... anyway, we'll
talk later on, I am on my way coming there, ... "
Ali Kuath: "I'm sending a car, sending a car. "
385. The Panel observes that the two persons in the above wiretap have no direct role in the
alleged fixing of the match between Fenerbaliye and IBB Spar, however the Panel
follows UEFA's theory insofar as this wiretap conoborates the view that this indeed
illustrates that a meeting took place with Mr Y1ldmm, Mr i~yen and Mr yelebi in the
aftemoon of 26 April 20 II.
386. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr yelebi md Mr
YusufTuranh, player agent, on 26 April2011 at 17:03 hour:
Ahmet yelebi: "My brother what's up, is everything okay."
YusufTuranh: "I'm in Bebek. "
Ahmet yelebi: "Will you go to Suadiye Cafe immediately. "
YusufTuranh: "Has something happened brother, is it something important."
Ahmet yelebi: "Yeah, yeah, ... come on come quick. "
3 87. Because of the time elapsed between the two conversations mentioned above, the
Panel finds it very likely that the "important matter" that had to be discussed quickly
was something that came up during the meeting between Mr Y!ldmm, Mr i~9en and
Mr t;elebi.
388. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Turanh and Mr
ibraliim Akin on 26 April2011 at 20:14 hour:
YusufTuranh: "I'm in Etiler.. come, ... come and have a tea with me."
YusufTuranh: "We are in Big Cheft now, why don't you pop in."
ibraliim Akin: "Okay. "
Tribunal Arbitral du Sjlc.Jrl

389. Insofar UEFA attempts to argue that after the meeting between Mr <;;elebi and Mr
Turanlr, the latter tried to schedule a meeting with Mr ibrahim Akin, player of IBB
Spor, the Panel supports this theory. The Panel finds it very likely that the issue that
was to be discussed between Mr Turanlr and Mr Akin derived from the meeting
between Mr Yildmm, Mr i~9en and Mr <;;elebi.
<;;elebi on 26 April2011 at 23:01 hour:
Yusuf Turanh: " ... Brother we'll do err okay I mean it is what you say brother
okay understand?"
Alrmet <;;elebi: " ... Okay fine my brother."
Yusuf Turanh: " .. .I'll do whatever you say, ... we'll do err together whenever you
say we should ... "
391. UEFA purports that Mr Turanh and Mr Akin met at Big Chefs restaurant at 22:19
hour on the same evening. During this meeting, Mr Turanh allegedly offered Mr Akin
not to play to the best of his abilities in the match against Fenerbah9e. UEFA further
asserts that the above wiretap clarifies that Mr Turanh reported back his success to Mr
<;;elebi.
392. The Panel observes that there is no direct evidence in the file that such offer was
indeed made to Mr Akin during this meeting. The Panel also finds that the above
conversation cannot be interpreted in the sense that the meeting was successful.
However, as will be clarified below, the Panel finds that it is indeed very likely that a
match-fixing offer was made during this meeting in light of the events that would
follow.
393. The following text message was sent by Mr Turanh to Mr Akin on 26 April 2011 at
23:11 hour:
"It's better this way.) you'd do charity work for the people around you:)"
394. The following text message was sent by Mr Akin to Mr Turanh on 26 April 2011 at
23:12 hour:
".))"
395. The Panel derives from the above text messages that Mr Turanh tried to convince Mr
Akin to do something for him. Apparently, some kind of offer was made to Mr Akin
by Mr Turanh.
396. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Akin and Mr
Alrmet Kangi, spiritua1leader or Hodja of Mr Aldn, on 26 April 2011 at 23: 15 hour:
ibrahim Akin: "My dear Hodja, I need to ask you something, you know we have a
match against Fenerbah9e at the weekend, they say that if jbo did not score we
would give him hundred thousand dollars. "

Ahmet Kangi: "I see, what will you do. "

ibrahim Akin: "I'm asking you my hodja, you might want to ask your men what
should we do. "
Ahmet Kangi: "What does your team captain your coach say about this?"
ibrahim Akin: "They don't say anything my hodja, they can't say anything like I
shouldn't play or I shouldn't score as they are fimn Fenerbahr;e, this is said by
someone else though ... I mean they can't say I shouldn't score though."
Ahmet Kangi: "Okay I see, the thing like these happen in football world, don't
they, it happens doesn't it?"
ibrahim Akin: "Yeah it does my hodja, but I'm asking you whether I should do it
or not ... we are talking about money here, but in the end they say don't do this,
don't do that. "
Ahmet Kangi: "But there is nothing wrong with that, this is something you do
willingly, you are not going to score but you are going to get money instead ...
there is nothing wrong with that, you don't need to worry, why should there be
any problems I mean don't let anyone know about it, it doesn't matter ... you know
there is a tomb here in our village... there are so many poor people there, you
should sacrifice an animal for the god and get those people to eat it. "
ibrahim Akin: "It's right my hodfa, okay. "
397. Fenerbahye argued at the occasion of the hearing before CAS that all the allegations in
respect of this match are actually based on the phone call between Mr Akin and his
spiritual leader. Fenerbah9e maintained that the amount discussed in the phone calls is
not the amount mentioned in the witness statements, but that this amount is related to
the acquisition by Mr Akin of a house in Cyprus from the mother ofMr Turanh.
398. The Panel considers the above wiretap to be of crucial impmtance to explain the
circumstances sunounding the match between Fenerbahye and IBB Spor. Apparently,
an offer was made to M:r Akin that if he would not score against Fenerbahye he would
receive USD 100,000. The Panel finds that such offer must clearly be considered as a
match-fixing attempt and is indeed categorical proof of the offer put to Mr Akin by Mr
Turanh as asserted by UEFA. The Panel has no doubt that this conversation concemed
the offer made to Mr Akin by Mr Turanh, particularly taking into account that only
four minutes elapsed after Mr Turanh reminded Mr Akin about an offer via text
message.
399. Fenerbahye argues that it is crucial that in this wiretap "[Mr Aldn] did not mention
any official of or any other person related to [Fenerbahye] in relation to this alleged
offer". There was no communication between Fenerbahye and Mr Akin with respect
to this match, and no money was offered to the player. Fenerbahye therefore submits
that the TFF PFDC correctly found that even ifMr Akin had received any money, e.g.
for betting reasons, it did not come from Fenerbahye or any of its officials in contrast
with the Appealed Decision which relied upon the determination of the 161h High

Criminal Court. This is also confirmed by all official banlc and financial records,
which were handed to experts by the prosecutor during the investigations before the
16th High Criminal Comt, and do not reveal any illegal transactions. Furthe1more, Mr
Akin has indicated that he made this statement to his Hodja because he did not want to
disclose how he really eamed the money, i.e. through gambling on horse races and
card games.
400. The Panel observes that Fenerbahve's argment that no link could be established
between the fixing of the match by Mr Akin and Fenerbahve is suppmted by the
findings of the TFF Ethics Committee and the decision of the TFF PFDC.
401. However, the Panel also observes that in the dissenting opinion enclosed to the
decision of the TFF PFDC, in the decision of the Istanbul 16th High Criminal Comt, in
the decision of the UEFA CDB and the Appealed Decision the conclusion is reached
that the fixing of the match by Mr Akin was initiated by Fenerbahve officials.
402. The Panel finds Fenerbahve's theory in respect of the gambling on horse races and
card games and the alleged acquisition of a house in Cyprus rather unlikely. It appears
to the Panel that it would have been easy for Mr Aldn to provide evidence that he
derived income fiom such activities. Casino's and betting agencies normally keep
track of their customers so the records of such organisations would undoubtedly show
the profit made by Mr Akin. The Panel also finds it very pecnliar that Mr Akin
allegedly had two distinct conversations, within a period of a few days, about
purchasing a house ofUSD 100,000 and about winning USD 100,000 from gambling
activities.
403. The Panel fmther finds that the fact that no irregularities were obse1ved in the banlc
and financial records by the prosecutor's experts during the proceedings before the
16th High Criminal Court, does not mean that such irregularities did not exist. As
recalled supra "corruption is, by nature, concealed as the parties involved will seek to
use evasive means to ensure that they leave no trail of their wrongdoing" (CAS
2010/A/2172, 70). The Panel considers it to be rather unlikely that any transactions
made related to match-fixing are made via official and registered banlc transactions. It
is much more likely that such transactions are made in cash as this would leave no
trail.
23:19 hour:
"it is approved:)" "it is accepted brother :) "
405. The Panel considers this text message to be another confi1mation that the offer made
by Mr Turanh was indeed the same offer that was discussed between Mr Akin and his
Hodja, because Mr Akin accepted the offer shortly after having had a discussion with
his Hodja.
406. The following text message was sent by Mr Turanh to Mr Akin on 26 April 2011 at
23:20 hour:
"Okay then great:) I'll see you tomorrow evening"
Tribuna 1 Arbitral du Sport

Coml of Arbitration for Sport
2:48 hour:
"It's not 100 dollars it's 100 euro brother says so;)"
"I won't accept it otherwise .) "
Akin on 27 April2011 at 21:49 hour:
ibrahim Akin: "What's up, have you sorted out our thing."
Yusuf Turanh: "Err I am meeting the guy tomorrow ... but the other one is not
bad, is it. "
ibrahim Akin: "No, I won't accept it. "
Akin on 28 April 2011 at 21 :29 hour:
ibrahim Akin: "I've heard nothing fi'om you. "
YusufTuranh: " ... don't worry everything is fine, they will call me tomorrow ... I
told them we needed to sort it out the next day. "
ibrahim Akin: " ... I won't accept it like that, ... or I don't know though. "
Yusuf Turanh: " ... I told them to sort it out tomorrow or I won't take any
responsibilities. "
ibrahim Akin: "Okay then, I'll go there tomorrow."
410. Although not of pmiicular relevance to establish the match-fixing attempt, the Panel
considers the above wiretaps about the cunency of the payment to be a confirmation
that Mr Akin was indeed promised an mnount ofEUR 100,000 or USD 100,000 if he
would not score in the upcoming match against Fenerbah9e.
411. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Akin and Mr
Fahri Tatan, a personal friend ofMr Akin, on 28 April2011 at 21:29 hour:
ibrahim Akin: "You know I have a match this week, ... they want me to do well
you know what I mean. "
Fahri Tatan: "Extra hah. "
ibrahim Akin: "But they do this for err the other way round "
Fahri Tatan: "You are Belediye Sport against Fener."
ibrahim Akin: "Yeah there is something like that. "
if
Tribunal Arbilral du Sport

CAS 2013/N3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 93
Fahri Tatan: "I hope you'll score two goals, get yourself ready.. "
Ibrahim Akin: "But it's not that, the other way round."
Fahri Tatan: "Is it from Fener. "
Ibrahim Akin: "Yeah. "
412. In respect of Fenerbah<;e's argument that no link can be established between the
match-fixing by Mr Akin and Fenerbah<;e, the Panel finds the above conversation to
be impmtant. In this conversation Mr Akin, again, confitms that the match-fixing offer
came from Fenerbahye. Although there is indeed no evidence in the file that the
payment came from Fenerbah<;e, the Panel has no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the offer to fix the match came from Fenerbah9e and that it does not
need to be established which person related to Fenerbah9e finally paid the money.
Superfluously, the actual transfer of money is not even necessary, as the Panel finds
that an attempt to fix a match can be made without any money finally being
transferred.
<;elebi on 5 May 2011 at 13: 11 hour:
YusufTuranh: "I'll come and see you tomorrow."
Ahrnet <;elebi: "See you later then."
414. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr <;elebi and Mr
!~<;en on 6 May 2011 at 13 :07 hour:
Ahrnet <;e1ebi: "Are you in your room ... managed to talk?"
Biilent Ibrahim !~<;en: "No not yet, I'll call him soon. "
Ahrnet <;e1ebi: "Yeah please call him. "
415. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr !~<;en and Mr
Nurgtil, secretary ofMr Ytldmm, on 6 May 2011 at 13:08 hour:
Btilent Ibrahim I~9en: "Would you tell him that Ahmet (:elebi phoned ... I'll give
you his phone number 532 402 23 63 ... but he wouldn't call him I mean I know he
won't call him. "
Nurgiil: "If he says 'where is he put him through, I want to talk to him', it would
be then err I don't !mow. "
Biilent Ibrahim !~<;en: "It is not for that kind of thing, he invited us, wanted us to
be there on Friday ... You tell him that Ahmet phoned ... tell him that he was
expecting us and if we could see him. "
416. Although the reason why Mr !~<;en wanted to talk to Mr Ytldmm does not become
clear fiom these wiretaps, the Panel finds that it must at least be concluded that Mr

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahsoe Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 94
i9en held close contact with Mr Ytldmm. Furthermore, the Panel observes that Mr
i9en attempted to contact Mr Ytldmm only one minute after his conversation with Mr
~elebi. It thus appears that these two phone calls are closely connected and this is
indeed an indication that a relationship existed between Mr ~elebi and Mr Y1ldmm.
417. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr i<;:en and Mr
~elebi on 6 May 2011 at 18:29 hour:
Biilent ibrahim i<;:en: "What did you do. "
Ahmet ~elebi: "Okay it's done I sent it ...jine come by then ... to the station."
Biilent ibrahim i<;:en: "I'll see okay. "
Akin on 6 May 2011 at 19:51 hour:
YusufTuranh: "When will you be coming. "
ibrahim Akin: "when the traffic is not busy. "
Yusuf Turanh: "you arrange that, you have to come alone okay ... just in case
let's keep our powder dry you never know."
ibrahim Akin: "You put that in the car."
YusufTuranh: "Man we'll play it safe okay ... are you talking about Murat."
419. UEFA submits that these conversations show that the money was transferred to Mr
Akin. Allegedly, the meeting took place in Big Chefs restaurant and Mr Turanh would
have entered the restaurant first with a black and striped bag and would have put this
bag on the table. Afterwards, Mr Akin would have entered and would have left with
the bag.
420. The Panel finds that this course of events cannot be derived from the above wiretaps.
There is no reference to a bag, nor is there any reference to money in the conversation.
However, in this respect the Panel considers the initial witness statement of Mr Aldn
to the Turkish police to be of particular importance, as he testified, inter alia, the
following: "We met with Yuslif Turanh again in the same restaurant [Big Chefs
restaurant] a week later. He brought me money in a bag. Then when I counted, I saw
he brought 50.000 dollars though he previously said he would bring 100.000. This
was the money promised by YuslifTuranhfor me not to score a goal". On this basis,
the Panel is satisfied to its comfortable satisfaction that indeed money was transferred
by Mr Turanh to Mr Akin for not scoring a goal. Additionally, at the occasion of the
hearing in front of CAS, Mr Turanh indicated that he gave a striped bag to Mr Akin in
Big Chefs restaurant, but that this bag did not contain any money, but formularies.
Based on these statements, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that a bag was delivered
to Mr Akin in Big Chefs restaurant by Mr Turanh in the evening of 6 May 2011.

421. In its Answer UEFA also presented a quote finm the recordings of the police
interrogation of Mr Akin. The content of this quote remained undisputed by
Fenerbah9e, although it must be noted that Fenerbah9e maintains that this testimony
should not be taken into account because Mr Akin later withdrew this witness
statement. The following testimony was given by Mr Akin:
"Physical follow-up's are true, I met with my manager 3 days before the match
upon his request in the restaurant called BIG CHEFS. He told me that
Fenerbahr;e offered me 100.000 dollars not to score a goal in their match. At first,
I didn't want it. I have strong religious emotions. I called the person named
Ahmet, whom I met previously in Istanbul and who is an imam in Erzurum now. I
told him that there was such an offer, they promised money in return, and asked if
it is a sin to accept this money. He told me there was no problem in terms of
religion. We met with YusufTuranlz again in the same restaurant a week later. He
brought me money in a bag. Then when I counted, I saw he brought 50.000
dollars though he previously said he would bring 100. 000. This was the money
promised by Yusuf Turanlz for me not to score a goal. I don't know fiom what
executive of Fener Yusuf got this money. There is no money exchange between us
about something else, or he doesn't owe to me. I didn't spend this money. I sent
about 10. 000 dollars to the hodja in Erzurum to sacrifice an animal and give it to
people. I distributed the remaining money to the poor people I know. I didn't need
this money anyway. I got this money with the pressure ofYusufTuranlz."
422. The Panel finds that this testimony cannot be left without any value, particularly
because it is very detailed and exactly in line with the theory put forward by UEFA
and the chronology and content of the translated wiretaps. The fact that Mr Akin
withdrew this witness statement at a later stage does not prevent this statement from
being evidence that can be taken into account in order to come to a conviction. Insofar
as Fenerbah9e argued that Mr Akin was put under pressure to give this testimony, the
Panel is not convinced that this testimony was illegally obtained, pmiicularly because
it became clear that Mr Mehmet Ali Bilen, lawyer of Mr Akin, was present during this
intetmgation. Although Mr Bilen testified at the hearing before CAS that threats were
made that Mr Akin would not be allowed to return home and spend the night with his
child after the interrogation and that his football career would be over if he did not
testifY, the Panel is not convinced that any unacceptable pressure has been exercised
or that Mr Akin was deceived by the public prosecutor, which should lead to the
exclusion of this witness statement. The Panel reiterates that Mr Bilen, lawyer of Mr
Akin, was present during Mr Akin's intenogation and that no fmmal accusations were
made in respect of the interrogation and/or the prosecutor, neither by Mr Akin, nor by
Mr Bilen. As such, in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the Panel
has no reason to doubt about the tmthfnlness of the testimony given by Mr Akin.
Moreover, Mr Bilen stated at the hearing before CAS that he advised his client only to
confess to things that were true.
423. Turning its attention to the general assessment of the alleged fixing of the match
between Fenerbah9e and IBB Spor on 1 May 2011, the Panel has no hesitation that Mr
Akin was offered an amount of EUR 100,000 or USD 100,000 in exchange for not
scoring a goal in the match against Fenerbahye. However, this does not necessarily
mean that the match-fixing offer came from Fenerbah9e. The Panel finds that the

CAS 2013/N3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 96
crucial issue to be resolved in respect of this match is whether the match-fixing offer
made by Mr Turanh to Mr Akin originated from officials related to Fenerbah<;:e. In this
respect, the Panel particularly considered the reasoning of the TFF Ethics Committee
and TFF PFDC, which both detetmined that no connection between the money which was paid to Mr Akin in order to influence the match result - and Fenerbah<;:e
could be established.
424. In respect of Fenerbah<;:e's argument that no offence is established pursuant to article
11 of law 6222 in Turkey, the Panel finds that this is inelevant. The present case
concerned an alleged violation by Fenerbah<;:e of the rules and regulations enacted by
UEFA. Whether Fenerbah<;:e, or officials of Fenerbahye, committed criminal offences
on the basis of Turkish laws is not for this CAS Panel to decide.
425. For the reasons mentioned above and particularly due to Mr Akin's statements in three
distinct conversations that the match-fixing offer came from Fenerbah<;:e and the fact
that Mr Akin initially testified that he received the money from Mr Turanh, who had
several conversations in the relevant period with Mr <;:elebi, who was in regular
contact with Fenerbah<;:e officials, the Panel does not agree with the conclusion of the
TFF PFDC and follows the dissenting opinion to the TFF PFDC Decision and the
decision of the 161h High Criminal Court in Istanbul in finding that it can indeed be
established that at least one of the officials of Fenerbah<;:e attempted to fix the match
between Fenerbah<;:e and IBB Spor by offering an amount of EUR 100,000 or USD
100,000 to Mr Akin if he would not score against Fenerbah<;:e.
426. At the hearing before CAS, Fenerbah<;:e argued that UEFA mixed up certain matches
because Mr <;:elebi is a board member of Sivasspor. As such, UEFA must have been
talking about the match between Fenerbah<;:e against Sivasspor instead of Fenerbah<;:e
against IBB Spor.
427. The Panel disagrees with this argument of Fenerbah<;:e. From the wiretaps it can
clearly be concluded that UEF A did not mix up the matches and that Mr <;:elebi also
played a role in Fenerbah<;:e's attempt to fix the match against IBB Spor. In this
respect, the Panel deems it important that the match between Fenerbah<;:e and
Sivasspor only took place on 22 May 2011,"while the match between Fenerbah<;:e and
IBB Spor took place on 1 May 2011. Therefore, the Panel considers it more likely that
the wiretaps mentioned above, that were recorded between 25 April and 7 May 2011,
relate to the latter match. The fact that Mr <;:elebi is a board member of Sivasspor does
not prevent him from being engaged in match-fixing activities on behalf of
Fenerbah<;:e.
428. Regarding the alleged buying of a house by Mr Akin from the mother of Mr Turanlt,
the Panel deems this theory rather unlikely. No evidence in this respect has been
provided to the Panel. If such documents were indeed existent, the Panel would have
expected such documents to be presented by Fenerbah<;:e.
429. Finally, insofar as Fenerbah<;:e argued during the hearing that in order for match fixing
to be established there must be an interest in order to change the outcome of a
competition, the Panel disagrees. It is not necessaty to effectively change the outcome
of a competition in order for a match fixing violation to occur. In respect of the
present match, the Panel finds that it is established that Fenerbah<;:e, through at least

one of its officials and intermediaries not directly related to Fenerbah<;:e, offered EUR
I 00,000 or USD 100,000 to Mr Akin in order not to score in the match against
Fenerbah<;:e. It cannot be determined that this directly influenced the outcome of the
match, i.e. it is not cetiain if Mr Akin would have scored if he would not have been
offered the money by Fenerbah<;:e. Nevertheless, by offering a cetiain amount to Mr
Akin, Fenerbah<;:e at least attempted to influence the result of the match, which is
already sufficient to establish a match-fixing offence.
430. Consequently, the Panel has no doubt and is comfmiably satisfied that at least one of
Fenerbah<;:e's officials attempted to fix the match between Fenerbah<;:e and IBB Spor
on 1 May 2011.
Fenerbah~e
v.
v. MKE Ankaragiicii (15 May 2011)
431. In the Appealed Decision the UEFA Appeals Body ruled that:
"After examination [sic] all the elements of the case file, the Appeals Body is
satisfied that there was an attempt to fix the match between Fenerbahqe and
Ankaragiigii [sic] played on 15 May 2011 of the 201012011 Turkish Super Lig.
Consequently, the Appeals Body believes that the President ofFenerbahqe SK, Mr
Yzldmm, a Fenerbahqe SK Executive Committee member Mr Ek~ioglu,
Fenerbahqe SK Vice President Mr Mosturoglu and Youth Division Director Mr
Turhan, took an active part in these match-fixing activities. The evidences
submitted provided support to this conclusion of the Appeals Body, notably the
Police Digest, the Ethics committee report, the decision of the TFF disciplinmy
bodies and the decision of the 161h High criminal court in Istanbul."
(i)
432. Fenerbah<;:e indicates that also in respect of this pmiicular match, the Appealed
Decision failed to name which players were contacted by Fenerbah<;:e and that it can
therefore only smmise who these players were. Dming the criminal investigations in
Turkey, players of MKE Ankaragiicii testified that "no one from [Fenerbah<;:e]
contacted any of the players of MKE Ankaragiicii before the match". Fmthermore,
according to Fenerbah<;:e, the decision of the 161h High Criminal Court did not reveal
any such contacts. There is not a single communication record in the criminal file that
implicates any contact between Fenerbah<;:e and any of the players of MKE
Ankaragiicti. This lack of connection is probably why the Appeals Body found that
only an attempt was made.
433. Fenerbah<;:e firrther submits that the match-fixing allegations also do not make sense
for footballing reasons. MKE Ankaragiicti was in eight place in the Turkish Super Lig
when the match stmied and had no chance of securing a European competition spot or
being relegated. The TFF observer agreed with the referee's decisions in respect of the
tlnee penalties awarded in this match. The TFF observer only did not agree with the
red card that was shown to a player of MKE Ankaragucu and identified this judgment
of the referee as a "black and white fault", however, Fenerbah<;:e purpotis that this
criticism was expressed only for football reasons.

Court of Arbitrillion for Sport
434. Fenerbahye avers that "many of the wiretaps contain "cryptic" construction or
agricultural statements". The Disciplinary Inspector of UEFA claims that the officials
are speaking in code to prevent being caught. The person making those statements, Mr
Ek~ioglu, in fact testified that he works in the construction indushy and manages
several construction projects for Fenerbahye. The fact of the matter is, according to
Fenerbahye, that he was refening to one of these constmction projects, not speaking in
some ldnd of code.
435. Finally, during the hearing Fenerbahye expressed the opinion that if the police was so
sure that the bag was full of money, the police should have intercepted the bag instead
of only making pictures of the bag. Fenerbahye also referred to a rep01t of a tax expert
which would indicate that an amount of USD 250,000 (equivalent to TRY 401,750)
was transfened to Mr Ek~ioglu and that this uansfer is reflected in the financial
records of Fenerbah9e, which would indicate that this money was not used for illegal
purposes.
436. UEFA contends that match-fixing in relation to this match proceeded on three fronts.
First, tlnough Mr ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu, Executive Committee member of
Fenerbahye, Mr Cemil Turban, Youth Division Director of Fenerbahye, Mr Yavuz
Agirgol and Mr Melnnet Yenice, intermediaries not directly related to Fenerbahye.
Second, tlnough Mr ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu, Mr Umit Aydin, Mr YusufTuranh and Mr
Abdullah Ba~ak. Third, tlnough Mr Melnnet :;lekip Mo~turoglu, Vice President of
Fenerbah9e, and Mr Sami Din9.
circumstances:
"Aziz Yzldzrzm instructed flhan Yiiksel Elcyioglu to fix the match through some
players of Ankaragiicii. jlhan Yiiksel Ekyioglu conducted the match-fixing
operation together with Cemil Turhan, Yavuz AgirgOl and Mehmet Yenice.
As part of the match fixing activities jzhan Elcyioglu, Cemil Turhan, Yavuz Agirgol
and Mehmet Yenice contacted the person named Yadigar Boga to reach some
players of Ankaragiicii. On 13.05.2011 Yavuz AgirgOl with the directive of jlhan
Elcyioglu took 400 '000 USD to give it to the players after the competition. The
players were contacted by Yadigar Boga. On 13.05.2011 300'000 USD were
delivered to Mehmet Yenice who went to Fenerbaht;e Dereagzi facilities with
Yadigar Boga. However, Cemil Turhan and Yavuz Agirgol decide to keep 100'000
USD.
In addition, the organisation gets in touch with former Fenerbaht;e goalkeeper
Murat $ahin (who was the goalkeeper ofKaszmpaya Spar at that time) to get help
to reach a player ofAnkaragiicii but received a negative reply.
An additional match-fixing offer is rejected and communicated by Yusuf Turanli
to Abdullah Basak: "Brother it is negative, they are afraid they are saying no, we
worked a lot but it is negative ... There is no problem about the other at the
weekend all right ... "
Besides, Sami Dim; was also involved in the matchjixing operation with the
instructions of M $ekip Mosturoglu. The High Criminal Court established that
organization member Sami Dim;: proposed Ankaragilcil 's Slovakian goalkeeper
Stefan Senecky's manager Milan to play in favour ofFenerbahre in the mentioned
match but the manager rejected the offer."
438. Taking into account all the above, the Panel will now provide an overview of the
evidence in the file it considers to be the most relevant and will draw conclusions from
the diverse wiretaps sunounding this particular match.
439. First of all, and as already indicated supra, the Panel finds that the performance on the
pitch is not an indication that a match was fixed. In order for match-fixing to be
established it is sufficient that an attempt to fix a match has been made. The Panel will
therefore analyse whether on the basis of the submissions made and the evidence
before it, it is comfortably satisfied, that officials of Fenerbah9e attempted to fix the
match between Fenerbahye and Ankaragiicii on 15 May 2011.
440. UEFA purports that Mr Aziz Y1ldmm, President of Fenerbahye, instructed Mr ilhan
Yiiksel Ek~ioglu, Executive Committee member of Fenerbahye, to fix the match by
bribing players of Ankaragiicii. Mr Ek~ioglu allegedly conducted the match-fixing
operation together with the intermediaries Mr Cemil Turhan, Mr Yavuz Agirg61 and
Mr Mehmet Yenice.
441. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr
Yenice on 23 April2011 at 10:46 hour:
Ek~ioglu
and Mr
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "You know the thing we talked, you do what is necessary
for the next weeks ... you should come to the facility one day next week to inform
us about the developments. "
Mehmet Yenice: " ... you know the other one is playing in err. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: " ... you forget about that one, take care of the others, ...
do what is necessary then we'll talk. "
Mehmet Yenice: "Brother we are in NTV right now... okay don't worry ... I will
let you know. "
442. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Aziz Y1ldmm
and Mr Ek~ioglu on 23 April2011 at 17:54 hour:
Aziz Y!ldmm: "We have arrived, what's up with you."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Fine, you talked to Cemi/, didn't you. "
Aziz Y1ldmm: "/did not talk to Cemil, Cemil is with me now. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "There are somthings [sic], he will tell you. "

Allegedly, the conversation between Mr Ytldmm and Mr Ekioglu was then shortly
interrupted and Mr YJ!dmm says to Mr Cemil Tmhan: "You would tell me
something". Mr Tmhan then answers: "Yeah I will tell you err". Following which Mr
Y1ldmm and Mr Ekioglu continue their conversation:
Aziz YJ!dmm: "So Mehmet arrived yet or what [allegedly referring to Mr
Mehmet Yenice]
ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "My chairman well there is nothing from this Mehmet, I
mean nothing from him though, but Cemil will tell you something ... that is very
important. "
443. In respect of the two above conversations, UEFA submits that Mr Ekioglu and Mr
Turhan instructed Mr Agirgiil and Mr Yenice to perform the initial contacts with
suitable players for match-fixing.
444. The Panel finds that this cannot be derived from these conversations as such. There is
no reference to establishing contacts with any players; there is only contact between
Mr YJ!dmm, Mr Ekioglu, Mr Yenice and Mr Turhan. However, the Panel finds that it
can be interpreted fiom these conversations that Mr YJ!dmm is leading a cetiain
operation. Mr Ekioglu appears to be the man that conducts the operation on behalf of
Mr Ytldmm and Mr Ekioglu wants Mr Tmhan to tell something to Mr Y1ldmm.
44 5. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirgol and Mr
Yenice on 29 April 20 II at 11: 17 hour:
Mehmet Yenice: "(says to Mr Agirgol to go to Stad hotel): "He will pay for it,
won't he, we would get receipt or whatever ... the ones start the operations mine is
err from the other side. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "Tell me ifyou have started on the other side. "
Mehmet Yenice: "You mean by the other side, mine is err you know Murat [which
is a reference to Mr Mmat $ahin, goalkeeper of Kastmpaa Spor and former
goalkeeper ofFenerbah9e], I'll talk about Murat when I'm there."
446. The Panel observes that it appears from this conversation that Mr Agirgol and Mr
Y enice are indeed intermediaries, individually conducting their operations on behalf
of someone. The operation of Mr Yenice is apparently related to Mr Mmat $ahin,
goalkeeper of Kastmpaa Spor. According to UEFA, he was the person that was
supposed to establish contacts with players of Ankaragiicii.
44 7. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirgiil/Mr
Yenice and Mr Ekioglu on 29 April2011 at 16:19 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "What did you do."
Mehmet Yenice/Yavuz Agirgol: "we are on it. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "okay I see but go over it with a fine comb."
Tribuna! Arbi tn1l du Sport

Mehmet Yenice/Yavuz Agirgiil: "I will don't worry about it, I will probably get
something tomorrow. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Okay you lay the foundations. "
Mehmet Yenice/Yavuz Agirgiil: "I'll take the table. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Yeah, we should lay the foundations and pour concrete ...
the workers. "
Mehmet Yenice/Yavuz Agirgiil: "Don't worry about it, .. l'lllet you know. "
448. As argued by UEFA, the Panel observes that in the above conversation the same kind
of code language is used as in respect of other matches. Although it is not clear
whether Mr Yenice or Mr Agirgiil was speaking, the Panel observes that it is not
disputed by Fenerbah9e that one of these two persons called with Mr Ek~ioglu. It
therefore appears that the inte1mediaries acted for Mr Ek~ioglu and therefore indirectly
for Mr Y!ldmm. As such, the Panel deems it to be established that the inte1mediaries
acted on behalf of Fenerbah9e officials and tried to establish contact with players of
Ankaragiicii through Mr ~ahin.
449. Insofar Fenerbah9e argues that the statements in the above wiretaps were not cryptic
but indeed related to the construction industry, the Panel deems this explanation rather
unlikely, particularly because no relevant evidence of any construction projects of Mr
Ek~ioglu are provided to the Panel by Fenerbah9e.
450. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Yenice and Mr
~ahin on 1 May 2011 at 14:34 honr:
Mehmet Yenice: "You haven't been around for two days, where have you been,
you didn't answer on purpose, did you. "
Murat ~ahin: "No, I'm telling you but you are dwelling on it.
Mehmet Yenice: "I thought something bad happened to you,
something wrong. "
if
there was
Murat ~ahin: "Were you worried?"

Mehmet Yenice: "that is all ... "
Murat ~ahin: "I said but he doesn't seem to understand ... brother the house I
mean it is kind of tricky you know ... I would do err if it was the other way round "
Mehmet Yenice: "Yeah I told you err what I was supposed to tell you ... l'll come
over and talk ifyou like. "
Murat ~ahin: "nope, don't, you don't need to do that. "
Mehmet Yenice: "Okay then ... this is closed then."

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar KuliibU v. UEFA- Page 102
451. The Panel observes that someone made an offer to Mr $ahin on behalf of Mr Yenice,
but that Mr $ahin did not want to be involved because "it is kind of tricky".
Agirgol on 2 May 2011 at 9:50 hour:
Ek~ioglu
and Mr
!!han Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: " ... Okay make your way to the club, the chairman will be
there, he said he wanted to talk there, you come to the stadium too. "
UEFA purports that Mr Agirgiil then answered that he was inside the stadium and
continued the conversation by stating the following:
1lhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: " .. .I'm on my way to the stadium, why don't you come to
the room and we 'll talk there. "
453. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirgol and Mr
Yenice on 2 May 2011 at 10:03 hour:
Y avuz Agirgol: ''Look listen to me now, I said to them the thing was 100 thousand
lira, they will give it to me right away ... but we need to talk to err ... to that
Murat."
Mehmet Yenice: "I do understand I mean don't say err, he already phoned me ...
will you talk to him. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "I will talk to him then I will do err with him, shall I give him the
money. "
Mehmet Yenice: "No, not yet, where are you."
Yavuz Agirgol: "I'm at the club now, the chairman wanted to see me, I'm going
to see him now, I'll be waiting for your phone, you give Murat my number and tell
him to call me. "
Mehmet Yenice: "He wouldn't call you though, he is afraid, his wife is crossed
with him, do you understand "
Yavuz Agirgol: "Well, what will we do then. "
Mehmet Yenice: "I don't know, we need to talk about it, hold on a second I'll call
you. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "Okay then."
454. The Panel observes that Mr Yenice informed Mr Agirgol about Mr $ahin's doubts
about accepting the offer. It also becomes clear that Mr $ahin would receive money
from Mr Yenice and Mr Agirgol if he would accept the offer.
455. The following text message was sent by Mr $ahin to Mr Yenice on 3 May 2011 at
00:39 hour:

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Knltibii v. UEFA- Page 103
"I'm not interested in. "

456. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Turhan and Mr
Mehmet Y enice: "I have sent an SMS now; the answer says that he is not
interested "
Cemil Turhan: "Really?"
Mehmet Y enice: "Really, I mean it is recorded on my phone, I will show you the
SMS I sent to him, and his answer when I come there. "
Cemil Turhan: "Okay. "
Mehmet Yenice: "Because, his wife was very angry with him on the other side, he
shut down all machines, his wife told him that she would leave him if he gets
involved in this again, and he shut down all of the businesses, and sold old
machinery. "
457. The Panel observes that because of the text message of Mr :;;ahin, Mr Yenice told Mr
Turhan that Mr $ahin did not accept the offer. Because of the code language used, and
in the absence of a credible explanation from Fenerbahs;e in respect of the references
to selling machinery, the Panel assumes that the offer made to Mr :;;ahin concerned
illegal conduct.
458. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirgol and Mr
Mehmet Yenice: "I talked to Cemil and told him err, .. you know the one we
couldn't reach ... told him about his situation. "
Yavnz Agirgol: "And what. "
Mehmet Yenice: "No way brother, .. I informed them where are you, .. Didn't you
talk to Cemil, tell him what I told you ... Cemil keeps calling me, you keep calling
me, and the others keep calling me I mean I can 't tell all ofyou everything, I only
tell someone to tell you, .. I did on the other phone err I told err him that at
midnight ... didn't he tell you that, the other side 's business. "
Yavnz Agirgol: "No, .. I can't tell him to make an appointment and tell him to be
that place at this time. "
Mehmet Yenice: "They said if there was anything else they would let us know. "
Yavuz Agirg61: "there is not anything else, that one is not okay, and the other one
is not okay either. "
Mehmet Yenice: "(says it was not okay): He had a fight with his wife, .. Cemil
would tell you that at err he knows about it, .. . they had a fight, his wife said to
him that 'if you did such thing we had this before we had many troubles because

of this, if you did such a thing I would take the children and go away, .. call him
though, remember the first time we called him, his wife answered the phone, .. he
went and came back from err if you know what I mean I can't talk on the phone
now ... do you get it he went ... you know he has another line I said that one was
switched off, .. he talked to the other side. "
459. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirgiil and Mr
Ekioglu on 9 May 2011 at 11 :49 hour:

Y avuz Agirgiil: "Shall I go to err to lay the foundations. "
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "Well if they err if they want you then you should "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "They said I needed to be there the next day, I'll go and have a
look ... I wannabe sure ... I'm asking you if I should go. "
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "You go then ... okay fine."
460. The Panel understands that because of Mr $ahin's refusal, Mr Agirgiil started looking
for other persons that could be interested in the proposal. When he found such
potentially interested persons, Mr Agirgiil informed Mr Ekioglu about the new
connections and asked him if he should go to "lay the foundations".
461. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ekioglu and Mr

ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "He'll also be there to see you tomorrow, he said so. "
Mehmet Yenice: "I talked to him in the morning ... I'm going to the other side
now, they will give some uniforms it is signature day, I'm going there ... he said I
should be there. "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Shall I come tomorrow or will you. "

Mehmet Yenice: "Sure you should "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Have you finished it, have you made an appointment."
Mehmet Yenice: "You come tomorrow ... make it in the afternoon ... I have, I went
to err today, didn't flhan tell you that... he called me... then I forwarded his
message to him ... I wentto err you know, he would tell you where. "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Did Ahmet tell you. "
Mehmet Yenice: "I told him ... he phoned me and said that my friend was going
there ... ] said yes ... then I phoned him again and said, in the meanwhile I got the
message ... I said I was going to see Hasan ... I said him to give the medicine to
err ... well to my friend I said ... I said

understand. "
if he
could phone by 5 or 6 ... do you
Yavuz Agirgol: "Yes I do, okay. "

463. The Panel understands the above conversations in the sense that Mr Agirgol and Mr
Y enice would apparently meet in the aftemoon of 10 May 2011.
464. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirg61 (on
Mehmet Yenice's phone number) and Mr Ek~ioglu on 10 May 2011 at 12:45 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "How is it going. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "It's going well, I'm going now ... will be back in the evening."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Okay we'll meet when you are back."
Yavuz Agirgol: "Okay brother I'm letting you know."
465. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirg6l and Mr
YavuzAgirg61: "I'vejusttalkedto another guy ... okay."
Mehmet Yenice: "Okay, where are you."
Yavuz Agirgol: "I'm now waiting for jlhan Elcyioglu ... I'm at the club."
466. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirg61 and Mr
Turhan on 11 May 2011 at 12:41 hour:
Yavuz Agirg61: "Where are you. "
Cemil Turhan: "At the club. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "Is everything fine. "
Cemil Turhan: "should we talk on the phone. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "No. "
Cemil Turhan: "We'll talk later then. "
467. The Panel understands from the above conversations that Mr Agirgol was going to
speak with the persons interested in the deal and that he would later have a meeting
with Mr Ek~ioglu at the club to discuss the matter. Apparently, Mr Agirg61 and Mr
Ek~ioglu had also scheduled a meeting around noon on 11 May 2011. The Panel
considers these conversations to be another indication that the offers made by the
intermediaries derived from Fenerbahve officials. The only missing element to be able
to establish that a match-fixing violation was committed by F enerbah9e officials is

that it is not entirely clear whether the illegal offers of the intetmediaries indeed
concemed match-fixing offers.
468. The Panel also finds that it becomes clear fiom this wiretap that Mr Turban and Mr
Agirgiil did not want to discuss the subject of their conversation by telephone. The
Panel finds this to be another indication that the subject of their conversation was of
an illicit nature.
469. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Yenice and Mr
Agirgiil on 11 May 2011 at 23:06 hour:
Mehrnet Yenice: "Anything yet, nothing, is there. "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Yes there is, I'm getting the wheat on Friday ... I will have it ...
as I said before we will send 4 men ... I mean he will give on Friday ... I'm giving
you the ball, you've got the rest now. "
Mehrnet Yenice: "Okay, I'll sort that out later on."
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Tell you men to do something okay ... or we will be f
.. d .... "
470. The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the conversation above refers to four players of
Ankaragiicii that were interested in accepting the offer made on behalf of Mr Ek~ioglu.
The conclusion that these "men" are football players from Ankaragiicii is patiially
based on the wiretap of the conversation between Mr Yenice and Mr Agirgiil of 16
May 2011 at 11:49 hour where it is specifically mentioned that ''footba/lers can have
200". The Panel finds that the reference to "sending wheat" is yet another attempt to
conceal the true subject of the conversation.
471. Fenerbah9e finally won the match against Ankaragiicii with 6-0.
472. As indicated supra, the Panel does not deem it necessary to assess whether any
extraordinary events occurred during the match, in order to establish the offence of
match-fixing.
Ek~ioglu
and Mr
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Come and see me, where are you."
Mehrnet Y enice: "I'm not there, I'm in Ankara now. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I'm telling we need to talk about that, ... the half of it is
not okay, ... it is not okay Mehmet, it's not, the half of it. "
Mehrnet Y enice: "How on earth is it not okay, we do everything jzhan then. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Mehmet what am I telling you, I'm telling you the half of
it is not okay, what did I tell you before we won't do anything until get the news
from our number 1. "

Mehmet Y enice: "I have not though, they've phoned me 3-4 times so for and I've
been waiting ... they phoned me from there, I will give you a call when I am with
them."
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I also talked to Cemil yesterday, the half of it is okay but
the other half is not, tell them this, ... what were you told when you were given
that. "
Mehmet Y enice: "Well I can't talk about this on err now, ... I'm going to see the
uncle. "
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Don't go there yet, just wait; ... wait don't go. "
474. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Turhan and Mr
Cemil Turhan: "He phoned you. "
Mehmet Y enice: "He says not to give, I get involved in kind of things then see
what kind ofsituation I am in it now ... don't you tell them man. "
Cemil Turhan: "I did tell them and they anyway we are not to talk on the phone,
not kind of thing to talk on the phone. "
Mehmet Yenice: "What am I supposed to do now, I'm waiting for err ... he
phoned me and said that and that, I am know [sic] about three hundred four
hundred meters away from there. "
Cemil Turhan: "I see you are there. "
Mehmet Yenice: "I'm with him now, I wanted to phone you when I am with him
you might want to talk to him... to ilhan ... he told me to give the half do you
understand, I'll give the three and take my err and we will share it, okey ... what
am I supposed to tell him, should I tell him it is not this and that. "
Cemil Turhan: "Sure you should tell that, what else would you tell him. "
Mehmet Y enice: "My brother we can't talk on the phone though but some... I
can 't tell you, I can't express myself though, do you understand "
475. The Panel understands the above conversations to concern a statement ofMr Ek~ioglu
that he would not pay the agreed amount to the intermediaries, but only fifty percent
of the amount originally offered.
476. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Agirgi:il and Mr
Mehmet Y enice: "I've been getting around, they keep calling me. "
Yavuz Agirgi:il: "Yes, he says not to give the money."
Tribunal Arbitral du S_[JOI'l

Court of Arbilralion for Sport
Mehmet Y enice: "What are we supposed to do. "

Yavuz Agirgiil: "You will come and get your share and we will give the rest to
them."
Mehmet Yenice: "All of it. "
Y avuz Agirgiil: "I'm telling you something man... I've just had a fight... look
man you won't give anything, you just take it and come here, we'll just give 200 of
it keep the rest of it. "
Mehmet Yenice: "We'll give the half of it then. "
Y avuz Agirgiil: "Don't, how do you think you would give the half of it ... you've
got 300 haven't you, keep 100 of it, and we'll give 200 of it back to them then it
will be over ... we'll give it to him then it is over. "
Mehmet Yenice: "I'll get my err at least. "
Y avuz Agirgiil: "We will give nothing to them, do not give anything to them. "
Mehmet Yenice: "Brother won't we give anything to them there ... wouldn't 1 give
200 to them, you just said so. "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "I said you gave 200 and we will give 200 back to them ... we will
divide in three what we have then, do we have any other options. "
Mehmet Yenice: "You are saying I should give 1 instead 3, aren't you. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "Yeah ... wait Cemil is here now, wait a second Cemil is with me
now. "
At 11:13 the conversation between Mr Agirgiil and Mr Yenice continues:
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Cemil is with me now, you will give 100 to that guy. "
Mehmet Yenice: "I can't do that, you come and give it to him then ... I at 3 ... how
am I supposed to give 100, I can't do that. "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Don't give anything then. "
Mehmet Yenice: "How on earth how could you say that ... I'll give 200 of it then,
I will give you a call when I'm with them, I'll tell them it is what I can give and
then I would leave there okay ... I'm going there to give 200 and I'll keep 100 and
come back ... I can't get involved in kind of thing. "
Mr Agirgiil then passes the telephone to Mr Turban:
Cernil Turban: "Look my man, you will give nothing okay, what is this man you
will it to one and you will not give it to the other ... you should wait for Yavuz."

Mehmet Yenice: "I can't keep them wait though ... it is easy to say that, isn't it. "
Then, the conversation between Mr AgirgOl and Mr Yenice continues:
Yavuz Agirgiil: "Shall I come there. "
Mehmet Yenice: "Yeah please brother come over and sort this out, how am I
supposed to give 100 though. "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "you bring 150 here, we will add fifty on it you know we have, we
will tell them we have given the rest to them... the man has threatened me what
are you telling man ... if I get there 1 won't give any okay. "
Mehmet Yenice: "Then pull your gun and shoot us ... you won't give any
come here. "
Yavuz Agirgiil:
if you
"If1 get there 1 won't. "
Mehmet Yenice: "What about me then."

Yavuz Agirgiil: "I will come and tell them that they did not err do err ... what I'm
telling you is you bring 150 over here and you should give 150 to them, that's
what I'm telling ... listen to me now flhan is waiting for me now, you go and get a
plane ticket for yourself, 1 will tell him Mehmet will get and bring the money over
here, I am telling you man you must do what I say, understand ... "
Mehmet Yenice: "I will let you know. "
477. The Panel observes that most of the wiretaps do not detetmine the cunency of the
amounts. Although UEFA submits that these amounts relate to dollars, the Panel
observes that only Mr Agirgiil referred to currencies in the wiretaps. First, in the
wiretap of 2 May 2011 at 10:.03 he referred to "lira", but later, on 16 May at 12:11
hour, he refened to "bugs [sic]". Furthermore, the Panel observes that Fenerbahc,;e
transferred an amount of TRY 400,000 to Mr Ek;;ioglu's account. In the absence of
any clear references to dollars, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that UEFA's
proposition in this respect is wrong and concludes that all amounts in this respect
relate to Turldsh lira.
478. The Panel understands from the above conversations that Mr Ek~ioglu had already
paid TRY 400,000 to the inte1mediaries, but that he now requested them to return half
ofthis amount, i.e. TRY 200,000. It appears that the intetmediaries already forwarded
an amount of TRY 100,000 to the players of Ankaragiicii as they had only TRY
300,000 left. It appears to the Panel that certain disagreements originated between the
intermediaries about the money that had to be returned to Mr Ek~ioglu. Whereas Mr
Yenice wanted to return the full amount of TRY 200,000 requested by Mr Ek~ioglu,
Mr Agirgiil and Mr Turhan were of the opinion that only TRY 100,000 or TRY
150,000 was to be returned.
4 79. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Yenice and Mr
Agirgiil/Mr Turhan on 16 May 2011 at 11:49 hour:

Mehmet Y enice: "I talked to the director, he said to give 2 when I was with
them ... I've given 2, I'm taking the road soon. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "You are not listening to us, are you ... how would you talk after
giving the money though. "
Mehmet Yenice: "He said so when I was with them. (Yavuz passes the phone to
Cemil)"
Mehmet Y enice: "get 2 and bring it here, that's it. "
Cemil Turhan: "Man are you mad, are you sick. "
Mehmet Y enice: "Man what was I supposed to do, he talked to me when I was
with them. "
Cemil Turhan: "Why on earth you would talk to him man. "
Mehmet Y enice: "he said he wanted to, he said he would not do anything bad and
I said my dear Hasan look it is this and that, don't do err then. "
Cemil Turhan: "What did I tell you, I told you not to answer not to give any to
anyone."
Mehmet Y enice: 'I've got I 00 and err has got I 00 and we will give 200 to him.
(Cemil passes the phone to Yavuz)"
Yavuz Agirgol: "Don't give anything man. "
Mehmet Yenice: "But I have already, it is over ... he said to me so when I was with
them he said to give 2 of it... the guys insisted on talking to him, they wanted to
talk okay ... and I had to phone him. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "Mehmet please don't complain now ... who brought you the
money, who gave you the money, it was me, wasn't I "
Mehmet Y enice: "Do you have to talk I mean on the phone. "
Yavuz Agirgol: "I'm telling you man you will bring 200 over here ... it can't be the
otherwise .. Jlhan told me to take 200 to there ... don'tdo wrong to us, you haven't
given the money yet, I know you haven't. "
Mehmet Y enice: "I talked to the man, he said to give 200 when I was with them,
what I am telling is to go and see the man together tomorrow."
Yavuz Agirgol: "He said Altzyol (referring to 1 Ekioglu who has an office in
Altzyol) he said to me the same thing, what did I tell you when you were leaving ...
I told you not to give, that was it, bring the rest of the money over here. "
Mehmet Y enice: "I did not give his name because he is one of the directors. "

Yavuz Agirgiil: "He told me to tell you to bring 200 and you can keep 200 okay ...
I meanfootballers can have 200, why are you making me talk man. (Yavuz passes
the phone to Cemil)"
Mehmet Yenice: "We would go there with Yavuz to Alt1yol you told them it was
this it was that, didn't you ... he said he wanted to see the chairman ... I said
chairman was not there, I said he was at err I said there was one err, well man
why don't we talk when I get there, God please you will make me go to jail man. "
Cemil Turhan: "why didn't you call us before you called there. "
480. The Panel finds the above wiretap to be of crucial importance in respect of this match.
Because of the statement of Mr Agirgiil that "footballers can have 200" in
combination with all the above, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the offer made
to the football players of Ankaragiicii by Fenerbah<;e officials was related to matchfixing. In this respect, the Panel takes into account the multiple statements in code
language, from which it can be derived that the conversations concerned illegal
conduct. The offer derived from Fenerbah<;e officials, more pmticularly from Mr
Y1ldmm, President of Fenerbahs;e, and Mr Ek~ioglu. The money intended for football
players derived from an illegal offer indirectly made by Fenerbahs;e officials to
Ankaragiicii players.
481. The Panel does not deem it necessary for it to be proven by UEFA which players of
Ankaragiicii accepted the offer to fix the match; the Panel finds that there is sufficient
evidence against the officials ofFenerbahs;e that a match-fixing offer was made.
Yavuz Agirgiil: "We will give these man 200, won't we ... we've given 100 which
we had ... okay you will say to jlhan that you gave 300 bugs [sic] to them because
they did not accept otherwise ... to these men, you will 50 again, you will tell 50 of
it, you will bring 50 and we will add 50 on it, Cemil and !will take 25 ... you will
bring 150 okay ... you will take 50 back from them ... you will tell you were in a bad
situation and gave 50 bugs to someone else, you will take it from the men. "
Mehmet Y enice: "Do you know what 1 should tell when I get there ... 1 will tell him
I could barely talk them into that, although you said so but they did not accept it,
I'll tell him 1 gave 50 more, okay we 'II talk to him together, to the other one ... man
please don't get me in jail, I will be there tomorrow, why don't we sit and talk
then. "
Yavuz Agirgiil: "You have to go there with me because I've got the money ... if we
take 50 back from them and we will add 50 on it, we will have 25 each at least."
483. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ek~iog1u and Mr
Faruk Yasar on 17 May 2011 at 16:37 hour:
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "/feel depressed, ... you know our work site in Ankara, ...
we sent the thing for the workers in that work site. "
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spar Ku1iibii v. UEFA- Page 112

Faruk Yasar: "Yes you did ma ... (match) before the err."'
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "We did but on one condition, we told them we told them
[sic] the condition, the moulds needed to be good the concrete was to be good "'
Faruk Yasar: "And you don't know
if it's done or what."'
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "One of our guys made also an agreement with the
foremen whom I had an agreement with ... therefore he clearly said that he
couldn't do the job, I said to our guy to Dere, ... I said he has to bring the half of
the advance back, ... and he came today but guess what there isn't even half of the
half"'
Fatuk Yasar: "There is no half of the half at all."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "There is one of four but there is no three at all, ...
hundred of it is gone, .. .I told him to bring the half of it. "
Famk Yasar: "Well what happened then. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "one of the workers came home in the middle of the night
... give me at least 100 more so I called err I called Dere, ... Dere said okay and I
gave."
Faruk Yasar: "the three offour is gone and you have one left. "'
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "You ... I said to him nobody could save him ... I said to
him who do you think you are man to eat my money, .. .! said why on earth you
would phone Dere, why did you phone Dere, ... are you doing business with Dere
or with me I said, .. .I said to Yavuz that ... you will go with him and take 100 and
bring it to me I said ... you cannot overcome this I can't overcome this and Cemil
can't overcome this either, ... because I said I said to our number 1 that I had 200
he err to me, ... I am waiting for it, I had a look and saw it was 100, what am I
supposed to tell him now, wee it was 200 but they gave 100 of it without my
knowledge ... would you say that ifyou were me, ... he said to me yesterday he just
came, he phoned me when he was with the workers and asked me if he should give
200 to them and I said to give 200 and bring the other 200 over here... I did
wrong ... I tried him once and I saw that he was such a fa ... ... t, I tried him last
year why would I try him again, ... I'm in trouble man ... I am shaken man feel
really bad though, ... it doesn't matter anymore if he brings or what, he must bring
it though I mean it is kind of err I mean it is three ... Yavuz is okay he says that
their hands were shaking when they gave it to him ... he told him to speak and he
told the other one to speak this and that then he said he phoned Cemil, I phoned
Cemil and pretending talking to Cemil, I did not show my color, he was asking me
if Cemil was denying what he said before. "
484. From the above wiretap, the Panel concludes that finally TRY 100,000 was retumed to
Mr Ek~ioglu by the inte1mediaries and that Mr Ek~ioglu was upset about this and
insisted on the return of the missing TRY 100,000. Although additional wiretaps were
provided, the Panel does not find it necessary to enter into more detail, although it

Court of Arbitrc1tion for Sport
wishes to state that allegedly finally an amount of TRY 90,000 was returned by the
intennediaries to M:r Ek~ioglu.
485. The Panel also concludes from the above wiretap that it was apparently Mr Ek~ioglu's
intention that TRY 200,000 were to be given to the football players of Ankaragiicii
and that the remaining TRY 200,000 was to be returned. It is at least in this sense that
the Panel understands the statement of M:r Ek~ioglu that "he phoned me when he was
with the workers and asked me if he should give 200 to them and I said to give 200
and bring the other 200 over here". The Panel is convinced to its comfortable
satisfaction that Mr Ek~ioglu, through the intermediaries, wanted an amount of TRY
200,000 to be given to football players of Ankaragiicii. From this course of events, the
Panel concludes that these payments were undoubtedly related to an attempt to fix the
match between Fenerbah9e and Ankaragiicii.
486. In respect ofFenerbah9e's argument that the references in the conversations related to
the construction business was not code language, but was caused by Mr Ek~ioglu's
involvement in the construction business, the Panel has no doubt in dismissing this
argument. Fenerbah9e did not provide the Panel with relevant evidence in respect of
Mr Ek~ioglu's involvement in the construction business. The Panel finds that the
conversations clearly concern the same matter, but that not only vague references are
made regarding the constmction business, but also to "selling machinery" and
agricultural business. Because of these inconsistent references, the Panel has no doubt
in determining that the conversations were made in code language in order to avoid
talking about the real matter at stake.
487. In respect of the tax expe1i's report submitted by Fenerbah9e, indicating that the
transfer of TRY 400,000 from Fenerbah9e's accounts to Mr Ek~ioglu is in
Fenerbah9e's official financial records, the Panel finds that it indeed appears as if an
amount of TRY 400,000 was transferred to M:r Elqioglu "for amateur branch".
Neve1iheless, the Panel finds the reference to "amateur branch" to be insufficient to
convince the Panel that this amount was indeed spent on the amateur branch. In the
absence of any evidence being provided which would indicate that the amateur branch
indeed received such amount and in light of the above wiretaps the Panel is
comfortably satisfied that the amount of TRY 400,000 was used for match-fixing
purposes.
488. Consequently, the Panel comes to the conclusion that Fenerbah9e officials attempted
to fix the match between Fenerbah9e and Ankaragiicii that took place on 15 May
2011.
vi.
Sivasspor v. Fenerbah~e (22 May 2011)
489. The UEFA Appeals Body ruled in its Appealed Decision that:
"After taking into account a variety of evidence resulting firstly from the Police
Digest and secondly from the 161h High criminal court decision, the Appeals Body
considers that it is established that the President of Fenerbahr;e SK, Mr Yzldmm,
and a Fenerbahr;e SK Executive Committee member, Mr Elcyioglu, conducted
match-fixing in the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbahr;e played on 22 May
2011."

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahve Spor Kultibii v. UEFA- Page 114

490. Fenerbah9e submits that the Appealed Decision does not mention which players or
officials of Sivasspor were involved or what kind of payments were made. Fenerbah9e
can only surmise that the UEFA Appeals Body is referring to payments made to
Sivasspor for extra tickets, the money transfer from the Appellant's clothing store,
other transactions regarding transfers and the purchase of a car.
491. Fenerbah9e maintains that both clubs saw an opportunity to meet Fenerbah9e's fan
demand for tickets of this last match of the season and generate revenue for Sivasspor;
so Fenerbah9e requested an increase in their allocation of tickets and negotiated with
Sivasspor. Subsequently, Sivasspor agreed to sell extra tickets to Fenerbah9e for a
higher price. Any money exchanged between the clubs was merely for ticket
purchases, including the "black bag incident". The 161h High Criminal Court in
Istanbul was convinced that this bag contained money and was given to the Sivasspor
officials allegedly for match-fixing putposes, whereas Fenerbah9e purports that the
bag in fact contained tickets that Sivasspor was unable to sell due to a price increase
for the game. Fenerbah9e agreed to buy 1,000 tickets and wired the money to
Sivasspor. The alleged bank receipts for this ticket transaction were submitted with the
Appeal Brie
492. Fenerbah9e futiher submits that several witnesses testified about the content of the
black bag, among which highly ranked officials of the Turkish government and a wellrespected journalist in Turkey. During the hearing before CAS, Mr Mecnun
Otyakmaz, President of Sivasspor, explained that tickets were reserved for
government officials and that the tickets were talcen from this bag, which was
allegedly confitmed by several testimonies before the criminal court in Turkey.
493. In respect of the allegation that Fenerbah9e used TRY 400,000 from its clothing store
Feneriutn to fund match-fixing, i.e. specifically paid to Mr Abdullah Kigt!t through
Mr Yelkovan, Finance Director of Fenerbah9e, Fenerbah9e asserts that these
allegations are baseless. Fenerbah9e has provided bank receipts which reflect the
transfer and its subsequent use. The alleged bank receipts related to this Fenerium
transaction were also submitted with the Appeal Brief. Fenerbah9e is of the opinion
that these records clearly demonstrate that the money was used for club pmposes and
not paid to Mr Krgt!t. At the hearing (the Panel assumes that reference is made to the
hearing before the 161h High Criminal Court in Istanbul), Mr Ytldmm also testified
that transfers of this kind from Feneriutn are common because Fenerium was created
to generate revenue for the club.
494. In respect of the allegations regarding transfer activity, Fenerbah9e maintains that
transfer activity after the end of the season is perfectly normal. Fenerbah9e's officials
were merely trying to secure new talent tlnough multiple avenues for the upcoming
season. The 161h High Criminal Comi in Istanbul also highlighted a conversation
between Mr <;:elikay, goalkeeper of Sivasspor, and his agent as evidence of matchfixing. The UEFA Disciplinary Inspector claimed that this conversation was linked to
a car purchased by Mr Ekioglu, i.e. a "gift" for match-fixing. The prosecution
claimed that the car was bought in the name of Mr <;:elikay' s sister, and the car was
actually purchased for Mr Baak, intetmediary. Mr Ekioglu considered Mr Baak to

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahye Spur Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 115
be a good luck charm for the club and told him he would buy him something if the
club won the title. He then bought the car on his own initiative for Mr Ba~ak.
495. At the occasion of the hearing before CAS, Fenerbahve put forward additional
arguments in respect of the "black bag theory". Fenerbahve considers it to be
impmiant that the bag was transferred in public and that the bag was left for a certain
time in the ttunk of a car without any protection, which it believes to be indications of
the legitimacy of the transaction. In addition, if the police was convinced that the bag
was full of money, why did they not open the ttunk of the car and take the money in
order to prove the match-fixing.
496. UEFA contends that Fenerbahve officials opened tlnee fi'onts of match-fixing in order
to influence the outcome of this final match of the season in their favour. First, Mr
Aziz Yildmm, President of Fenerbahve, met with Mr Mecnun Otyakmaz, President of
Sivasspor, and entered into a match-fixing deal. On this basis, Mr Otyakmaz
attempted, through Mr Ahmet <;elebi, executive of Sivasspor, and Mr Biilent 4ven,
intermediary, to convince Mr Melnnet Y1ldiz, player of Sivasspor, not to play to the
best of his abilities. Second, Mr Y1ldmm instructed Mr ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu,
Executive Committee member ofFenerbahve, to seek to influence the outcome of the
match and did this t!nough Mr Abdullah Ba~ak and Mr YusufTuranh, intermediaries,
who made a deal with Mr Korean <;elikay, goalkeeper of Sivasspor, that he would not
play to the best of his abilities. Third, Mr Ali Kirath, intermediary, made a deal with
other Sivasspor players tlnough Mr Fatih Akbaba, intermediary.
circumstances:
"In the 341h week of the 2010-2011 Super League season, Fenerbaht;:e was the
league leader on goal difference with 79 points and Trabzonspor was in the
second place with 79 points; both teams had a chance to become the champion.
Aziz Yzldmm instructed jlhan Yuksel Eh;ioglu to conduct match fixing through
some Sivasspor players. He personally made a deal with Sivasspor's chairman
Mecnun Odyakmaz that they would play badly.
jzhan Eh;ioglu who was the most important actor of the match-fixing activities of
the organization stated on [sic] of his phone conversations that "It is good, 3
stitches. 1 mean we 'II make sports in three different ways, it's for sure" and his
answer to Aziz Yzldmm 's question "Are you making it with Sapancalz or
$ekerli?" in another conversation: "1 did it with three of them my president". As
seen in the conversations the match-fixing activities were carried out over three
different persons.
1.
On 17.05.2011 Aziz Yzldzrzm and Mecnun Odyakmaz had a private

meeting. After the meeting, while Mecnun Odyakmaz was leaving
Fenerbaht;:e Club, they became suspicious that they were photographed by
a car. Mecnun Odyakmaz told that the meeting was about the tickets to sell
the supporters of Fenerbaht;:e for Fenerbaht;:e and Sivasspor competition
in case of a potential wiretapping or physical pursuit. But Aziz Yzldmm

did not understand what he meant and said that "Sure sure.
we talked about the tickets".
If it happens,
Based on this agreement with Aziz Yzldmm, Sivasspor president Mecnun

Otyakmaz attempted to convince player Mehmet Yzldzz to play in favour of
Fenerbahr;e via Sivasspor executive Ahmet (:elebi.
2.
Aziz Yzldmm gave orders to jlhan Elcyioglu and Abdullah Baak to contact
some persons for the competitions. Abdullah Baak told YustifTuranlz, the
player representative, to contact Sivasspor goalkeeper Korean <;elikay.
jlhan Ekioglu met up Aziz Yzldmm face to face on 13.05.2011 then
telephoned Abdullah Baak saying "I've just met number 1, I told him
about the things and that the key persons in this were you and your man".
Abdullah Baak and jlhan Ekioglu had a conversation face to face in the
morning on 16.05.2011 and Abdullah Baak called Yusuf Turanlz and
said: "I'm out now. jlhan says that you should give 3 00 to that brother
and take 200 for yourself, he said that you should make sure of this" and
following this conversation Yusuf Turanh met up with Korean (:elikay in
Etiler. In that meeting 300. 000 Dollars was offered to Korean so that he
would play in favour of Fenerbahr;e in the match and, Korean accepted
this offer. jlhan Ekioglu now knew that that goalkeeper of Sivasspor
Korean (:elikay would play in favour of Fenerbahr;e according to deal, so
he telephoned Alaeddin Yzldmm just before the competition and said to
him that "Shots as many as possible Ok? ".
3.
In addition, Ali Kzratl! made a deal with some Sivasspor players through
FatihAkbaba so that he would play in favour ofFenerbahr;e."
498. Before turning its attention to the individual wiretaps provided in respect of this
match, the Panel acknowledges that the bank receipts provided by Fenerbahs:e were
considered genuine by the TFF Ethics Committee. Although the documents were not
translated to English, the Panel is satisfied to accept that these documents indeed show
that Fenerbahve transferred money to Sivasspor in exchange for 1,000 additional
tickets for the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e and that Fenerium transfened
a sum of TRY 400,000 to the club on 12 May 2011 with the refence "PAYABLES TO
SUBSIDIARIES".
499. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ek~ioglu,
Executive Committee member of Fenerbah9e, and Mr Faruk Ya~ar, intermediary, on
17 May 2011 at 16:37 hour:
Faruk Ya~ar: "We have 2, 3 days left, we'll be the champion,... Is there
anything?"
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "ok 3 stitches, .. .I mean we'll make sports from every
branch."
Faruk Ya~ar: "90 percent. "

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Ku!Ubii v. UEFA- Page 117
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "1 00, 100. "

Faruk Ya~ar: "Sources are solid, then?"
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Very solid."
Faruk Ya~ar: "They are not like the others aren't they?"
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "No no. "
500. The Panel observes that this conversation appears to be part of the same wiretap that
was set out above, as the date, the time and the persons are all the same. At first view,
it is not clear why the wiretap is related to the match between Fenerbah9e and MKE
Aukaragiicii and this wiretap to the match between Sivasspor and F enerbah9e, as the
present part of the conversation does not refer to any specific statements that would
indicate that Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Ya~ar changed the subject of their conversation to
the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e. Nevertheless, in light of the following
wiretaps the Panel is convinced that this part of the conversation indeed concerned the
match between Sivasspor and Fenerbahye. The main reason for this conclusion is that
it can be derived fiom the conversation that Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Y a~ar were talking
about a future match, whereas the match between Fenerbah9e and MKE Aukaragiicii
was already played. Another reason is that it can be observed from the following
wiretaps that Mr Ek~ioglu and Mr Y a~ar had other conversations specifically about the
upcoming match against Sivasspor.
501. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Y a~ar and Mr
Ek~ioglu on 22 May 2011 at 15:00 hour:
Faruk Ya~ar: "Can we watch the game relaxed now? What are we going to do?"
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "We are in Kad1koy now, damn it. "
Mr Ya~ar then allegedly mentioned that 75% of the stands would be filled with
Fenerbah9e fans and continued the conversation:
Faruk Ya~ar: "Okay, I understand. We already knew that it would be like this.
Will we be relaxed in terms of the other thing. "
tlhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Yes Yes."
Faruk Ya~ar: "So, you made sure ofyour connections in the building site, right?"
1lhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I'm telling you to watch the game relaxed. "
502. The Panel finds that this conversation clearly makes a liuk between the references to
buildings sites and football matches ofFenerbah9e. Indeed, it appears that Mr Ya~ar in
fact asked Mr Ek~ioglu whether the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e was
fixed.
Aziz Y1ldmm on 17 May 2011 at 17:53 hour:
Ek~ioglu
and Mr
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar KnHibii v. UEFA- Page 118

Aziz YJ!dmm: "Are you on the land line?"'

ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "Yes."'
Aziz Y1ldmm: "We will send 550, right? ... Did you give all of the other one?"'
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "We gave. "'
Aziz YJ!dmm: "There is a problem there. I need to talk to you about it. "'
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "Where is the problem?"'
Aziz Y1lchnm: "Whatever, we'll talk about it tomorrow, it is not a big issue. Let
me warn you. There is a problem there ... let's talk about it when we come
together ... Are you going to do it with Sapancalz or $ekerli?
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "I did it with 3 of them my president. "
Aziz YJlchnm: "You did itttJith three ... Ok then. I'll talk to you tomorrow."'
504. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr YJ!dmm and Mr
Tamer Yelkovan on II May 2011 at 17:24 hour:
Aziz Y1ldmm: "Abdullah Kzgzlz is transferring 400. 000 from F enerium now. "
Tamer Yelkovan: "!just received the call, I was amazed."
Aziz YJ!dmm: "I called him ... Ifthere is money send it to Mr Tamer. They said
that they were sending 400 ... you see I work from every angle."'
Tamer Yelkovan: "If the players set this on fire, !twill all be over."'
505. The Panel observes that the wiretaps provided by UEFA are not organised in a
chronological order as the above wiretap was recorded about one week before the
conversation between Mr Ekioglu and Mr Y1lchnm.
506. In respect of the above wiretaps, the Panel concludes that these conversations could
concem a legitimate acquisition of additional tickets from Sivasspor for the final
match of the Turkish Super Lig seasons and that the transfer of TRY 400,000 from
Fenerium to Mr Tamer Yelkovan is not necessarily suspect. The Panel concms with
Fenerbah9e insofar it submits that UEFA's argument that an amount of TRY 400,000
was paid to Mr Kigih, is incmTect. The Panel finds that it appears from this wiretap
that Mr Kig1h, on behalf ofFenerium, paid this amount to Mr Yelkovan.
507. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Abdullah Baak
and Mr Yusuf Turanh on 13 May 2011 at 19:02 hour. Before the wiretap starts, Mr
Baal' allegedly asked Mr Tmanh whether Mr i9en called or not, Mr Turanh told Mr
Baak that he did not.

Abdullah Ba~alc: "I have big news for you, ... he went and talked to
Mecnun, .. Jlhan said said [sic] that "do not to talk to him, talk to me" I told him
that "Yusuf won't be involved in that business anymore. "
YusufTuranh: " ... it shouldn't be this way, things get complicated this way ... "
508. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between M:r Ba~ak and Mr
Ekioglu on 13 May 2011 at 19:35 hour:
Abdullah Baak: "Yes brother. "

ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "Are you going to get trp early tomorrow as well?"
Abdullah Baalc: "Probably, brother."
Ilhan Yuksel Elqioglu: "Good, I need to talk to you about a very important issue
in the morning. "
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Brother, let me tell you something. "
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "Huh!"
Abdullah Baak: "I am very demoralized "
ilhan YU!csel Ekioglu: "Why?"
Abdullah Baak: "You know my brother Bulent?"
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "Yes."
Abdullah Baak: "He is up to something again, brother. "
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "He always does! F.ck him!"
Abdullah Baak: "Your man told him, but you don't know this."
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "No, no! I have just come from there now. I met with our
number 1."
Abdullah Baak: "Number 1 is here with me. He called him. "
ilhan YU!csel Ekioglu: "Okay my man. I told him everything. "
Abdullah Baak: "Huh. "
ilhan Yuksel Ekioglu: "Okay?"
Abdullah Baak: "Huh (means yes). "
ilhan Yuksel Ek~ioglu: "I told him that the bastard is no good for even afck ... It
is wrong ... I told him what I had shown you."

Abdullah Ba~ak: "H1h [sic]. "

ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I told him that you and your man are the keys for the
operation. "
Abdullah Ba~ak: "H1h [sic]."
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "But, I told him that you did not want to them to know him
[sic]. "
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Yes. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I told him "don't even know them, they don't want this in
this way, they want me. "
Abdullah Ba~alc: "Yes. "
ilhan Yiiksel E~ioglu: "This is a summary of the conversation. "
Abdullah Baak: "Ditto, ditto. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Then I told him "you are calling Biilent and you tell him
about these things, and then everything gets complicated. "
Abdullah Baak: "Brother, ifyou excuse me, I want to tell you something. Do you
know what I told him today? I told him "you said something to brother jlhan for
something which does not even exist, and he resented me. " Okay? I asked him
"when did I do something behind your back? What happens if I do this? Who am
I? Who am I?"
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Now, look Apo. We have only one week left. We must
settle down and think logical. "
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Yes, yes brother. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "I told him everything, okay?"
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Look brother, I was with my other friend- brother -just now.
He told me that he will not talk to anybody else other than you and me. "
ilhan Yiiksel Ek~ioglu: "Ditto, okay, I told the same thing, listen to me for once,
listen to me. "
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Okay brother, ditto. "
ilhan Yiiksel E~ioglu: "This is the actual bomb (flash news). You know, your
man was saying that an answer was supposed to come from somewhere."
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Yes."

ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "He talked about that issue, I will tell you tomorrow. That
issue is okay. I will take mu [sic] kid to Dereagzz for football school at 10 o 'clock
tomorrow in the morning. "

Abdullah Baak: "Okay brother. "
1Ihan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "Let's meet at 10 in Dereagzz, the news are very good "
Abdullah Baak: "Shall I also bring my other brother to there, brother?"
1Ihan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "It will be super. "
Abdullah Baak: "Okay brother okay."
ilhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "Okay?"
Abdullah Baak: "Okay brother. "
tlhan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "At 10, in Dereagz1."
Abdullah Baalc "Okay brother. Do you want anything else from me? "
1Ihan Yiiksel Ekioglu: "Only your well-being."
Abdullah Baak: "I kiss you brother, my regards to you. "
tlhan Yiik:sel Ekioglu: "Okay, okay, me too. "
509. According to UEFA, it must be understood from the above two wiretaps that there was
a certain reluctance of some intermediaries and Mr Ekiogln about fixing matches
with the involvement of the president of Sivasspor.
510. The Panel finds that this assumption of UEFA does not become sufficiently clear by
these wiretaps.
511. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Ylldmm and Mr
I9en on 13 May 2011 at 21:54 hour:
Biilent Ibrahim I9en: "I talked to that friend They are set. He'll go and talk
about the price, he asked about what was required, he said that he would talk
about it in person ... don't wony about the ... but he says that hamsi side (referring
to Trabzonspor) is putting pressure as well. I told him that we will prevent it from
happening, I told him: "You will meet in person, You'll call, This is not a joke,
There no need to involve too many persons, Make it a concise conversation,
tomorrow is another day, everything should be !mown, but too much talking does
not lead to any good, make it a concise conversation and everyone will know their
duties."
Aziz Y1ldmm: "I think you should send Ahmet, too (referring to Ahmet (:elebi). "
'I'rilHnwl Arbitral clu Sporl

Court of Arbilralion for Sport
Biilent ibrahim i~s:en: "Of course, he is going, too ... he will after our match on
Monday or Tuesday and he'll stay in the camp for 5 days ... the friend- the one
you told his name - ... we told him that if he did not do this, we would never look
at his face again, that he shouldn't even bother saying hi again. "
Aziz Yildmm: "Come tomorrow, let's talk then, okay."
Biilent ibrahim i~s:en: "I told him that ''you'll leave eve1ything and go and stay
there for 5 days and ... prevent everything. "
512. The Panel understands fiom the above wiretap that Mi i~s:en was worried that
Trabzonspor was ''putting pressure as well". In combination with all the other
elements, the Panel finds this to be an impmiant indication for match-fixing. It can be
understood from this wording that Fenerbah<;:e was putting pressure on Sivasspor and
that they were afraid that Trabzonspor would attempt to fix this match as well.
513. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr i~s:en and Mr
~elebi on 13 May 2011 at 21:57 hour:
Biilent ibrahim i~s:en: "Look. He called me and asked about it Ahmet ... He asked
whether I went and talked to you. I told him that we talked I told him not to
worry. I told him that you will go to there 3 days before our match and you 'l/ stay
in the camp. I told him that you will be successful. I told him not to worry and not
to listen anybody else other than you. I told him that you'll prevent everything, I
told him all of these words on behalf ofyou Ahmet. "
Ahmet ~elebi: "Anyway, we'll talk later, okay?"
514. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mi ~elebi and Mi
i~<;:en on 16 May 2011 at 13:53 hour:
Ahmet ~elebi: " ... I mean, do we agree on the things we talked about?"
Biilent ibrahim i~s:en: "Yes."
Ahmet ~elebi: "Okay I initiated the operation be informed"
Biilent ibrahim i~s:en: "Good okay, let me know. "
In this conversation, Mr i~s:en also says the following to Mr ~elebi:
Biilent ibrahim i~s:en: "Now, I will go to Brother Aziz and tell him on, I will tell
him that this one loves money too much, that he can 't even keep his mouth shut. "
515. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr YIldmm and Mr
Mecnun Otyakmaz on 17 May 2011 at 22:09 hour:
Mecnun Otyakmaz: " ... something came to the door and I stzy that we are in such
a state, we brought the remaining VIP tickets to you and look at the trouble it
caused us. "
'I'ribun;il Arbitral clu Sport
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e SporKuliibii v, UEFA- Page 123
Aziz Ytldtnm: "Of course, of course

about the tickets. "
If something like
that happens,,we talked
Mecnun Otyakmaz: "Be informed. I went there and left them to Ebru, ... the VIP
tickets, ... I already gave the goal-line tickets to Biilent, ... he took them and when
you wanted extra tickets, 0 [sic] brought those VIP tickets and left them to Ebru."
516. UEFA maintains that there are conversations about a parallel and separate acquisition
of tickets fi"Om Sivasspor. In this context, it is suggested that a bag containing tickets
was involved. In light of the inconsistencies in the accounts exposed by the 161h High
Criminal Court, UEFA finds that any sale of tickets appears to have been used as
cover for simultaneous other discussions in relation to match-fixing.
517. The Panel finds that the above wiretaps show that there were legitimate conversations
between Mr Ytldmm and Mr Otyakmaz about the purchase of tickets for the match
between Sivasspor and Fenerbal!9e. Although the possibility cannot be excluded that
there were simultaneous discussions about match-fixing, the Panel finds that it is not
sufficiently clear which conversations are related to the purchase of tickets and which
conversations concern alleged match-fixing. As the explanation adduced by
Fenerbal!9e in respect of the purchase of tickets is considered credible by the Panel,
the Panel is not comfortably satisfied that there were simultaneous discussions about
match-fixing.
cetiain person called "Niivit" on 21 May 2011 at 18:56 hour:
Ba~ak
and a
Niivit: "Yes sir?"

Abdullah Ba~ak: "If you forget that bag, forget me for the rest of your life, It is
both my and your future, It's jzhan Ekioglu 's."
Niivit: " ... you say that; but, wait, I'm trying to park the car. Why don't you close
the door? Wait, I'm coming there Brother Apo. "
519. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr <;elebi and the
person called "Niivit" on 21 May 2011 at 23:35 hour:
Ahmet <;elebi: "Where is my bag?"
Niivit: "It's in the car."
Ahmet <;elebi: "Bring it upstairs."
520. The Panel understands from the above wiretaps that the content of the bag was
important. However, this conclusion does neither support the theory that the bag
contained money, nor the theory that the bag contained tickets.
521. In respect of the content of the bag, the Panel is not convinced that the bag contained
money intended for match-fixing. Although the conversations in respect ofthe bag are
suspicious, the Panel is not convinced to its comfortable satisfaction that the bag is
'I'ribrmc.il Arbitral clu Sport

connected to an attempt to fix the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e. In this
respect, the Panel took into account that the TFF Ethics Committee came to the
conclusion that no link could be established and that the TFF PFDC and the TFF
Board of Appeals did not investigate the circumstances surrounding this particular
match. The Panel also took into account the arguments presented by Fenerbah9e
522. Nevertheless, and similar to the conclusion of the TFF Ethics Committee, the Panel
finds that although this element of the alleged match-fixing could not be proven, still
the fact remains that Mr Y1ldmm and Mr Ekioglu attempted to influence the outcome
of this match by approaching players of Sivasspor through certain intermediaries.
523. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Mehmet Ylldiz,
Sivasspor player and an anonymous person. The exact date and time of this wiretap is
not mentioned, it is however indicated that this phone call took place in the evening
after the match, which remained undisputed by F enerbah9e. The Panel therefore
accepts that the following conversation took place in the evening of 22 May 2011:
Mehmet Ylld1z: "What can I do? We made Fenerbahr;e champion. I'm going."
Anonymous person: "Why didn't you hit the ball with your head and score? Why
did you hit with your foot? You cannot hit the ball with your foot."
Mehmet Ylld1z: "Why should I score? I didn't go there to score. I went there just
to move around. Look at the coincidence ... Santos's [sic] movement was in vain, I
told the president that I'm leaving. Be informed. "
Anonymous person: "Well, get along well with our new sportive director there ...
Omit Karan. "
Mehmet YildJz: "I'll talk to Omit."
Anonymous person: "He left the football ... he 'll be there and deal with
everything. "
Mehmet Y1ldJz: "With the transfer?"
Anonymous person: "I told that Sezer made a deal with Fener, he might as well
be champion, so he'll not be demoralized. "
524. Although the Panel observes that Mr Ylld1z apparently did not play to the best of his
abilities, the Panel deems that this is not sufficient proof of match-fixing. The Panel
finds that no linlc could be established between the bad performance of Mr YJld1z and
a match-fixing attempt by Fenerbah9e officials.
Korean <;:elikay, goalkeeper ofSivasspor, on 15 May 2011 at 18:12 hour:
Korean <;:elikay: "I'm in jstanbul, I arrived yesterday. "
YusufTuranh: "Why didn't he let you play, Korean?"
Tribunal Arbitral du Spun
CAS 2013/N3256 Fenerbahs;e Spor Ku!Ubii v. UEFA- Page 125
Court of Arbilration for Sporl
Korean <;elikay: "He let the others play who normally cannot get a chance. "
YusufTuranh: "Will he do the same in the Fener match?"
Korean <;elikay: "No, We'll be as our fitllline-up in Fener match. "
Yusuf Turanh: "Are you playing in the Fener match?"
Korean <;elikay: "Yes, in$allah .. .J mean there is no problem."
YusufTuranh: "When will you return back? Tomorrow?"
Korean <;elikay: "Well, on Tuesday. "
YusufTuranh: "Okay, see you tomorrow then."
Turanh on 16 May 2011 at 11:22 hour:
Ba~ak
and Mr
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Olr, I left now, ... jlhan says that, ... 20.000 Dollars to me, ... he
says that he will f their life .. f. k both of them, .. .! said to him whatever he liked,
we would do, ... He says that he didn't do anything ... he said that you should give
300 to that brother and take 200 to yourself, ... he wants you to handle this without
fail ... "
527. The Panel finds this wiretap to be highly suspicious. No clarification is given by
Fenerbah<;e regarding the purpose of these amounts. The Panel finds that it appears
fiom this wiretap that Mr Ek~ioglu apparently instructed Mr Ba~ak to tell Mr Turanh
that he "should give 300 to that brother and take 200 to yourself". Because of the
phone calls between Mr Turanh and Mr Korean <;elikay before and after this
conversation the Panel is comfortably satisfied that Mr Korean <;elikay is "that
brother" referr-ed to in this conversation. As such there is a link between Mr Ek~ioglu
and Mr Korean <;elikay and the transfer of a ceJiain amount to the latter.
528. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr <;elikay and Mr
Turanh on 17 May 2011 at 10:57 hour:
Korean <;elikay: "I didn't notice that you wrote me last night. "
Yusuf Turanh: "I asked coach what he was thinking about it. He said that they
bring ... after this Hokan business is more clear... .just like I said (he laughs) be
relaxed think about the operation ... let's finish the operation first without any loss,
then you can have your vacation. "
Korean <;elikay: "Not so easy, I want raise. "
Yusuf Turanh: "Raise? It is great there. you be relaxed.. leave out the rest
... money ... who should I talk to here? (referring to jzhan C:elikay) your brother?"
Korean <;elilcay: "You don't need to talk to anyone, why should you talk? .. :See
you on the way back. "
Tribunal Arbitn.Ji du Sport

YusufTuranh: "Because I'll receive the present on Sunday afternoon, okay."

Korean <;:elikay: "It doesn't matter, It is not important whether it stays on you or
on me. "
Ba~ak
and Mr
Abdullah Ba~ak: "They made the line-up public now, ... goalkeeper Ramovh;, ... no
I said wrong goalkeeper Korean. "
ilhan Yuksel Ek~ioglu: "HUH?"
Abdullah Ba~ak: "(he laughs) But he is using two attackers Eneramo and
Pedriel, ... Hayrettin and Kadir in the defence again ... There is Sedat, .... He said
the others too, I called my Uncle now, ... we'll beat them, .... I'm very relaxed, I
don't know why but I'm really relaxed, I'm thinking about whether I should buy
Mini Cooper or Peugeot 508 (he laughs)."
ilhan Yuksel El~ioglu: "Let's just win this game, the rest is .... "
Abdullah Ba~ak: "I swear to God, ilhan, I'm saying this with all of my heart, I
mean all the stress we had, only a few people including the president lived that
stress, ... we won honourably. "
530. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr Alaeddin
Y1ldmm, Fenerbah9e official and brother of the Fenerbah9e president, and Mr
ilhan Yuksel Ek~ioglu: "Brother ... You are at the downstairs, right?"
Alaeddin Y1ldmm: "What is up?"
ilhan Yuksel E~ioglu: "I don't want to disturb game plan: but shots as many as
possible. "
Alaeddin Y1ldmm: "Okay, we 'II talk later okay."
531. The Panel finds that the above wiretap suppmts the proposition that Mr Ek~ioglu was
aware of the fact that the goalkeeper of Sivasspor was involved in the match-fixing
scheme.
Ba~ak on 22 May 2011 at 20:53 hour:
YusufTuranh: "Did you see how that kid gave away the goal?"
Abdullah Ba~ak: "Let's hope that it ends well. "
T'ribum:J Arbitral du Sport
Yusuf Turanh: "What else is going to happen?. Fener will win. There is nothing
else about it. Fener does not go to the goal ... But after all ... we gave away the
goal really badly, I'm sorry about that kid. "
533. The following wiretap is a recording of a telephone call between Mr ilhan <;elikay and
Mr Turanh on 22 May 2011 at 23:39 hour:
ilhan <;elikay: "We have been talking from 10 minutes .. .It's good Nothing to
worry about. "
Yusuf Turanh: "Good okay well! I'm relaxed I couldn't reach him, I sent a
message to him and then I called him but his phone is turned off .. everyone gave
away such goals since the beginning of the league. As if eve1y goal scored is a
normal goal. "
ilhan <;elikay: "Of course, it can be like that .. .! wish he would not save Stach's
shot at least. "
Yusuf Turanh: "There, he saves the goal, but he gives away the goal in another
position, this is just unfortunate ... evaything, every goal keeper."
ilhan <;elikay: "For example, he made a move to save the goal in Niyang's goal
... yet, he couldn't save it. "
YusufTuranh: "Even if he give away normal, flawless goal, he would say it."
534. The Panel finds that the alleged bad performance of Mr <;elikay in itself is no proof of
his involvement in the match-fixing scheme of Fenerbah9e. However, the Panel
considers that the conversations between Mr Turanh and Mr Baak and between Mr
ilhan <;elikay and Mr Turanh strengthen the proposition that Mr Korean <;elikay did
not play to the best of his abilities in exchange for a cettain sum of money that derived
indirectly from Fenerbah9e officials. The Panel finds that this is supported by the
conversation between Mr Baak and Mr Turanh mentioned supra. On this basis, the
Panel is comfortably satisfied that Mr Korean <;elikay's was involved in a matchfixing attempt ofFenerbah9e.
535. Although the 16th High Criminal Comt in Istanbul considered the "black bag theory"
to be proven and convicted Mr Otyalanaz ("due to the fact that it is established that he
aided the crime organization founded by AZiZ YILDIRIM in order to affect the results
of the sports competitions by committing the crimes of matchjixing and incentive
bonus in Turkish Professional Super League"), the Panel, on the basis of the
submissions of the pmties, the testimonies given at the hearing, and in light of the
considerations of the IFF Ethics Committee, is not satisfied to its comfottable
satisfaction that this themy provides evidence for Fenerbah9e's attempt to fix the
present match. As such, the Panel finds that UEFA's allegation in respect of the first
front of match-fixing could not be proven to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel.
536. The Panel also finds that the theory related to the acquisition of a car for Mr Baak by
Mr Ekioglu is insufficiently proven. The Panel is not convinced that this car was

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbalwe Spor Kuliibli v. UEFA- Page 128
bought for Mr Ba~ak in exchange for his services to Fenerbahye related to the fixing
of the match between Sivasspor and Fenerbahye.
537. Considering all the above, and despite the conclusions in respect of the "black bag
theory" and the pmchase of a car, the Panel is nevertheless comfortably satisfied that
Mr Aziz Y1ldmm, through Mr Ek~ioglu, Mr Ba~ak and Mr Tmanh, approached Mr
Korean <;::elikay and attempted to prevent him from playing to the best of his abilities
in the upcoming match against Fenerbahye.
538. Therefore, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that UEFA' s allegations in respect of the
second fiont of match-fixing indeed occmred and as such the Panel does not deem it
necessary to address the alleged third fiont of match-fixing.
539. Consequently, in view of all the above, the Panel comes to the conclusion that it is
comfmiably satisfied that Fenerbah9e officials attempted to fix the match between
Sivasspor and Fenerbah9e played on 22 May 2011.
Conclusion
540. In its conclusions regarding the individual matches the Panel solely relied on the
evidence presented to it by the pmties in these appeal arbitration proceedings. The

Panel drew its own conclusions and did not give particular impmiance to the
conclusions drawn by the bodies that have examined the present matter in the past. In
this sence, the Panel is convinced that it fully utilised its discretion to decide the case
de novo and examined the facts and the law afresh.
541. Nevertheless, the Panel feels comfmied in its conclusion that Fenerbah9e officials
attempted to fix all fom of the individual matches that have been investigated by this
Panel, by the fact that almost all the bodies that have examined the match-fixing
allegations ofFenerbahye (the TFF Ethics Committee, the TFF PFDC, the TFF Board
of Appeals, the 16th High Criminal Court ofistanbul, the UEFA CDB and the UEFA
Appeals Body) came to the conclusion that at least one of Fenerbah9e's officials was
guilty of having attempted to fix the matches investigated in the present appeal
arbitration proceedings.
542. The Panel took into account that the decision of the 16th High Criminal Comi in
Istanbul did not yet become final and binding since several individuals appealed this
decision. Although the Panel restrained itself from drawing clear conclusions from this
decision and made its own evaluation of the facts, the Panel observes that the Supreme
Comt Prosecutor confirmed the convictions of all the Fenerbah9e officials. The Panel
finds that a criminal conviction, although not yet final and binding, can be taken into
account to corroborate the conclusions reached in the decision challenged.
54 3, In this sense, the Panel makes reference to a recent CAS Award in a matter pe1taining
to match-fixing allegations against the Ukrainian club FC Metalist. In this case a

Ukrainian criminal court acquitted FC Metalist. Nevertheless, the CAS panel cmne to
a conviction. In explaining these different outcomes, the CAS panel, when assessing
the underlying facts, inter alia, dete1mined that the panel is not guided by the standard
of proof beyond any reasonable doubt in the present case, but has to be convinced to
its comfortable satisfaction (CAS 2010/A/2267, 746).
'fribunal Arbitral du Sporl
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerhah9e Spor Kultibii v. UEFA- Page 129
544. In this respect, the Panel adheres with UEFA's statement that the fact that CAS does
not have to follow a criminal acquittal does not mean that CAS will not have to take
into account a criminal conviction. While a criminal conviction on the higher standard
is not automatically conclusive, it is very unlikely that proceedings before CAS, on the
lower standard of comfortable satisfaction, will result in a contrary conclusion.
545. Insofar the above-mentioned adjudicatory bodies did not come to a conviction of
Fenerbah9e officials (the 161h High Criminal Court in respect of the match between
Genylerbirligi and Fenerbahye of 7 March 2011 and the TFF Ethics Committee and
the TFF PFDC in respect of the match between Fenerbahye and IBB Spor of 1 May
2011 ), the Panel explained why it deviates from such findings. Insofar certain
adjudicatory bodies did not investigate a cmiain match (the TFF Board of Appeals in
respect of the match between Fenerbahye and IBB Spor of 1 May 2011 and the TFF
PFDC and the TFF Board of Appeals in respect of the match between Sivasspor and
Fenerbah9e of 22 May 2011), the Panel, next to its own findings, feels comforted by
the findings of the remaining adjudicatory bodies that did come to a conviction in
respect of these matches.
546. Consequently, the Panel finds that Fenerbahye is guilty of attempting to fix, through
its officials, four matches in the Turkish Super Lig in the 2010/2011 season. The Panel
concludes that the merits of the case warrant disciplinary sanctions to be imposed on
Fenerbah9e.
h)
If so, was the sanction imposed on Fenerbalu;e proportionate?
547. Since the Panel came to the conclusion that Fenerbah9e officials attempted to fix four
matches in the Turkish Super Lig, the final issue to be decided is the sanction to be
imposed on Fenerbahye.
548. The Panel observes that the UEFA Appeals Body decided in its Appealed Decision
that:
"Fenerbah9e SK is excluded from participating in the next two (2) UEFA club
competitions for which it would qualifY. "
(i) Position of the parties
549. In respect of the sanction, Fenerbah9e appears to rely on three arguments in coming to
the conclusion that the sanction is illegal or disproportionate; that the Appealed
Decision violated the equality principle, that the sanction imposed in the Appealed
Decision is illegal because it violated atiicle 17 of the UEFA DR and that the
sanctions in the Appealed Decision were "illegally disproportionate".
550. Regarding the alleged violation ofthe equality principle, Fenerbah9e submits that
UEFA did not impose any sanction under article 5 UEFA DR in multiple other- and
recent - cases involving very similar allegations of match-fixing related to domestic
matches and refers specifically to the cases of FC Porto, FC Karpaty Lviv, FC
Metalist Kharkiv and all five Italian clubs that were sanctioned in 2006 for matchfixing by the FIGC, but not by UEFA.

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahve Spor Kullibli v. UEFA- Page 130
551. Fenerbah9e further submits that the sanction imposed by the UEFA Appeals Body is
illegal because it violated article 17 of the UEF A DR on two accounts. Fenerbah9e
submits that the UEFA Appeals Body did not take into account all the "subjective
elements of the offince" because there was insufficient infmmation to make a
dete1mination regarding the extent of the liability of the individual officials and also
because it ignored several mitigating circumstances.
552. More particularly, Fenerbahye maintains that the only mitigating circumstance taken
into account by the UEFA Appeals Body was the fact that Fenerbah9e was withdrawn
fiom the 201112012 season of the UEFA Champions League by the TFF. While this is
indeed a mitigating circumstance, Fenerbah9e submits that the fact of the matter is that
UEFA did not actually mitigate the sanction when taking into account the UEFA
Disciplinary Inspector's originally requested sanction.
553. Fenerbahye also purpmis that it must be taken into account that there were no damages
for UEFA as Fenerbahye did not pmiicipate in the UEFA Champions League. This
should be taken into account given that other cases of match-fixing directly impacted
UEFA competitions. Fmihe1more, Fenerbahye avers that it could reasonably expect
that no further sanctions would be imposed on it by UEFA on the basis of the Letter of
UEFA's Secretary General. Finally, Fenerbahye finds that it should be taken into
account as a mitigating circumstance that since criminal investigations were initiated
against it, Fenerbah9e infmmed UEFA accordingly in its application forms, which was
taken into account as a mitigating circumstance by the UEFA CDB in its decision
dated 21 June 2013 concerning Be~ikta:r
554. In the altemative, Fenerbahye purports that the sanction is dispropmiionate,
pmiicular!y in comparison with sanctions imposed on other clubs found guilty of
match-fixing.
555. Contrarily, UEFA argues that the principle of equality was not violated. UEFA finds
that Fenerbahye failed to acknowledge that UEFA has amended its rules, to implement
the suggestions contained, among other, in the FC Porto case. Fmihermore, it is
contrmy to common sense to consider that how different cases on different facts at
different times under different rules have been dealt with, can preclude a spmis
goveming body applying its own clem rules as contemplated. UEFA also purpmis that
Fenerbah9e apparently overlooked that in certain recent cases (i.e. Pobeda,
0/ympiakos Volou) article 5 of the UEFA DR was applied.
556. In addition, UEFA maintains that it did not violate miicle 17 of the UEFA DR. Only
because the TFF acted swiftly, Fenerbahye did not succeed in illegitimately making its
way into the competition by reason of its cheating. This in no way mitigates the
seriousness of the cheating involved, or wmTants a reduction in the appropriate
sanction. In respect of Fenerbah9e's reliance on the Letter of the UEFA Secretary
General, UEFA submits that this cannot operate as mitigation because it is untrue. In
respect of info1ming UEFA about the match-fixing investigations, UEFA contends
that Fenerbah9e when filing the UEFA Admission Fmm for the 201112012 Champions
League season, it deliberately misled UEFA and continued to do so by not informing
UEFA at any later moment.
557. Finally, in respect of the propmiionality of the sanction, UEFA submits that under
CAS jurisprudence, a certain reservation or restraint is shown when it has to evaluate
whether or not a sanction is appropriate. UEFA also refers to several CAS awards that
reflect the impmiance of eradicating match-fixing from sport.
(ii) Findings of the Panel

i.
UEFA's alleged violation of the equality principle
558. In respect of Fenerbahve's argument concerning the principle of equal treatment, the
majority of the Panel finds that no violation occurred and refers to its conclusions
regarding UEFA's competence supra. With reference to the cases conceming Pobeda
and Olympiakos Volou, the majority of the Panel finds that this is not the first time that
UEFA applied article 5 of the UEFA DR in match-fixing cases.
ii.
UEFA's alleged violation of article 17 of the UEFA DR
559. Concerning Fenerbahve's arguments regarding article 17 of the UEFA DR (2012) the
Panel observes that this miicle provides as follows:
"The competent disciplinary body shall determine the type and extent of the
disciplinary measures to be imposed, according to the objective and subjective
elements to be imposed according to the objective and subjective elements of the
offence, taking account of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Subject
to Article 6(1) of the present regulations, no disciplinary measures may be
imposed in cases where the party charged bears no fault or negligence. "
560. Insofar as Fenerbahve argues that there was insufficient information available for the
UEFA Appeals Body to take into account the subjective elements of the offence, the
Panel disagrees and refers to its reasoning in respect of Fenerbahve's liability for the
actions of its officials supra.
561. In respect of the alleged violation of article 17 of the UEFA DR by failing to take into
account any mitigating circumstances, the Panel observes that the UEFA Disciplinary
Inspector argued in his Report that "[t]he Claimant acknowledges that in light of the
TFF's withdrawal of Fenerbahr;e from the 2011-2012 Champions League,
Fenerbahr;e suffered similar consequences as if it had been declared ineligible to
compete in the 2011-2012 Champions League by UEFA. The Claimant submits that
this factor should be taken into consideration by the CDB for the purposes of
determining an appropriate sanction" and submitted the following request for relief:
"Rule that Fehnerbar;e [sic] has already served the sanction provided for by
Article 2.05 (a one-year period of ineligibility) but pursuant to Article 2.06 of the
Regulations of the UEFA Champions League, Fenerbahr;e Spar Kuliibii
Fenerbahr;e [sic] is excluded fiom participating in the next two (2) UEFA club
competitions for which it would otherwise qualifY."
562. The Panel observes that the reasoning of the UEFA CDB in respect of the
proportionality of the sanction was rather limited and only reasoned that "the Control
and Disciplinary Body considers that the offences committed are particularly serious,
Tribunal Arbitral du Spori

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e SporKuliibii v. UEFA _Page 132
Court or Arbitration for Spon
that they caused considerable harm to Turkish and European football, and that severe
sanctions are necessary in such cases" and decided as follows:
"To exclude Fenerbah9e SKfrom participating in the next three (3) UEFA club
competitions for which they would qualify. Nevertheless, the third season is
deferred for a probationary period ofjive years. "
563. The UEFA Appeals Body, inter alia, argued that:

"the Appeals Body is of the view that an imposition of a probationmy period in
the present case is inappropriate. In the hypothetical case that the Appellant is
liable, directly or indirectly,for a fttrther act of match fixing, the penalty would be
much more severe than the one imposed by the Control and Disciplinary Body
which, given the fact and evidence provided by the parties to the Appeals Body,
could be considered lenient. The fact that the Disciplinary Inspector did not file a
cross appeal in his reply, prevents however this second instance to impose a more
severe sanction.
On the basis of the above, and taking in consideration the factual impact of the
decision of the TFF not to enter the Appellant in the Champions League
2011/2012, the appeal is partially admitted and the first-instance decision
partially upheld ( .. .}"
564. On this basis, the UEFA Appeals Body reached the following conclusion:
"Fenerbah9e SK is excluded from participating in the next two (2) UEFA club
competitions for which it would qualify."
565. The Panel disagrees with Fenerbah9e's argument that the period of ineligibility
already served must be taken into account in reducing the sanction initially requested
by the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector, as this mitigating circumstance was already
discounted in his request for relief. The UEF A Disciplinary Inspector requested UEFA
to exclude Fenerbah9e from pmiicipating in European competitions for two seasons,
thereby taking into account that Fenerbah9e already served a one-year period of
ineligibility. This was exactly the sanction imposed by the UEFA Appeals Body,
which thereby specifically took into account the period of ineligibility already served.
566. Since the Panel determined that the Appellant could not have "reasonable
expectations(.. .) that no further sanctions would be imposed" on it, the UEFA Letter
cannot be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance either.
567. Consequently, the Panel finds that UEF A did not violate miicle 17 of the UEFA DR.
iii.
The proportionality of the sanction
568. Turning its attention to the proportionality of the sanction, the Panel observes that the
UEFA CDB imposed a three-year period of ineligibility from participating in UEFA
club competitions on Fenerbah9e (in addition to the period of ineligibility already
served), of which one year was deferred for a probationary period of five years, for
'Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spar Kultibii v. UEFA- Page 133
fixing five matches and fi"audulently and intentionally filing the UEFA Admission
Criteria Form.
569. The Panel notes that the UEFA Appeals Body imposed a two year period of
ineligibility (in addition to the period of ineligibility already served) fiom participating
in UEFA club competitions on Fenerbahye, for fixing eight matches and fraudulently
and intentionally filing the UEFA Admission Criteria Form.
570. The Panel came to the conclusion that Fenerbah9e is guilty of attempting to fix,
through its officials, four matches in the Tmkish Siiper Lig in the 2010/2011 season
and that Fenerbah9e is not liable for the way it filled out the UEFA Admission Criteria
Form.
571. Although the Panel came to a smaller number of convictions in comparison with the
decisions of the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body, which would nonnally
justify a more lenient sanction to be imposed, the Panel has no doubt that the
imposition of a two-year period of ineligibility from UEFA club competitions is
wananted.
572. In the absence of any guidance in the UEFA DR as to particular objective and
subjective circumstances to be taken into account in pronouncing an appropriate
sanction from the wide range of sanctions provided for in article 14(1) of the UEFA
DR (2008), the Panel, in determining an adequate sanction to be imposed on
Fenerbah9e relies on 1) its de novo competence to review the facts and the law afresh;
2) the range of sanctions pronounced in earlier match-fixing cases before the CAS.
573. In respect of the first element, the Panel notes the constant jmisprudence of CAS
regarding a limited discretion for CAS panels to review sanctions imposed by
disciplinary bodies of federations when such panels make similar findings as in the
decision appealed against and that such discretion should only be exercised "when the
sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence" (CAS 2009/A/1817
& CAS 2009/A/1844, 174). The Panel finds that in exercising its de novo
competence in respect of alleged procedmal flaws in the proceedings before the UEFA
CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body and in coming to a different conclusion on the
merits of the case as in the Appealed Decision, it shall, in principle, also not restrict
itself in ruling de novo in respect of the sanction to be imposed. As such, the Panel
finds that it has to malce its own independent evaluation regarding the sanction to be
imposed.
574. Regarding the second element, the Panel observes that the range of sanctions imposed
in earlier match-fixing cases before CAS vary between a one-year period of
ineligibility (CAS 2011/A/2528), and an eight-year period of ineligibility (CAS
2009/A/1920). The Panel observes that this spectrum of sanctions (period of
ineligibility between zero and eight year) is comparable to a certain extent to the
spectrum of sanctions in doping cases. In view of the earlier-mentioned analogy
between match-fixing cases and doping cases in respect of the standard of proof to be
applied, this Panel is prepared to find some guidance in the elaborate regime on of
doping sanctions.
'l'ribunal Arbitnil du Sport
575. In practise, this spectrum would mean that a "standard" match-fixing offence would,
in principle, have to be sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility. In case of
particularly serious match-fixing offences a higher sanction would have to be imposed
and in case of mitigating circumstances the standard two-year period of ineligibility
would have to be reduced.
576. In light of this spectrum of sanctions and considering that the match-fixing attempts
initiated by Fenerbah9e's officials were particularly serious in comparison with
previous match-fixing cases, the Panel has no doubt to determine that a sanction from
the higher region of this spectrum is warranted. The Panel thereby specifically
considers the fact that Fenerbah9e officials attempted to fix four matches, that multiple
high-ranked Fenerbah9e officials were involved in the match-fixing scheme and that
the match-fixing operations were conducted and orchestrated from the top
administrative level of the club.
577. However, as UEFA did not file an independent appeal against the Appealed Decision,
the Panel finds that it is limited in its discretion to sanction Fenerbah9e as it deems fit
because it cannot go beyond the sanction imposed by the UEFA Appeals Body. This
would constitute a ruling ultra petita. As such, the Panel cannot impose a higher
sanction than a two-year period of ineligibility (in addition to the period of
ineligibility already served through the equivalent of the "administrative measure") in
the present appeals arbitration proceedings.
578. Hence, despite the fact that the Panel finds Fenerbah9e guilty of having attempted to
fix "only" four matches, whereas the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body found
F enerbah9e guilty of attempting to fix respectively five and eight matches, the Panel
finds that a total period of ineligibility of three seasons (including the period of
ineligibility already served) from UEFA club competitions is not disproportionate in
light of the violations committed.
579. Considering all the above, the Panel concludes that an exclusion of Fenerbah9e from
participating in the next two UEFA club competitions for which it would qualify is
wananted.
B.
Conclusion
580. Based on the foregoing, and after taking into due consideration all the evidence
produced and all arguments submitted, the following is detennined:
a) The Panel concludes that UEFA violated the legal principle of res iudicata and
the scope of the present proceedings is therefore limited to the findings of the
UEFA CDB on the five matches.
b) The Panel concludes that UEFA did not violate the principle of ne bis in idem.
c) The (majority of the) Panel concludes that UEFA was competent to instigate
disciplinary proceedings in respect of match-fixing against Fenerbah9e and the
sanctions pronounced in this respect were in accordance with the legality
principle. There is however no clear legal basis to sanction Fenerbah9e for
improperly completing an Admission Fonn and no distinct sanctions should be
imposed in this respect.
'fribtllHll Arbitral du Sporl

Court
or Arbilration for Sporl
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibli v. UEFA- Page 135
d) The Panel concludes that UEFA was not estopped fiom instigating disciplinary
proceedings against Fenerbahs;e because of the UEFA General Secretary's
letter dated 23 August 2011.
e) The Panel concludes that UEFA could impose a sanction on Fenerbahs;e even if
it deemed that the level of information obtained in relation to the individuals
was not sufficient to issue a sanction against them yet.
f) The Panel concludes that the disciplinary proceedings shall not be remitted
back to UEFA due to a violation of several procedural rights.
g) The Panel concludes that the merits of the case wanant disciplinary sanctions
to be imposed on Fenerbahs;e.
h) The Panel concludes that a two-year period of ineligibility of Fenerbahs;e from
UEFA club competions is warranted.
581. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed and the decision of the
UEFA Appeals Body is confirmed.
5 82. Any other prayers and requests for relief are dismissed.
X.
COSTS
583. The Panel notes that the present case is of disciplinary nature, Article R65.1 of the
CAS Code provides that:
"This Article R65 applies to appeals against decisions which are exclusively of a
disciplinary nature and which are rendered by an international federation or
sports-body. In case of objection by any party concerning the application of the
present provision, the CAS Court Office may request that the arbitration costs be
paid in advance pursuant to Article R64.2 pending a decision by the Panel on this
issue. "
584. Aliicle R65.2 of the CAS Code stipulates the following:
"Subject to Article R65.2, para. 2 and R65.4, the proceedings shall be free. The
fees and costs of the arbitrators, calculated in accordance with the CAS fee scale,
together with the costs ofCAS are borne by CAS.
Upon submission of the statement of appeal, the Appellant shall pay a nonrefundable Court Office fee of Swiss fiancs 1,000.- without which CAS shall not
proceed and the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn. ( .. .)"
585. Article R65.3 of the CAS Code determines that:
"Each party shall pay for the costs of its own witnesses, experts and interpreters.
In the arbitral award, the Panel has discretion to grant the prevailing party a
contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with
the proceedings and, in particular, the costs of witnesses and interpreters. When
granting such contribution, the Panel shall take into account the complexity and
the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and financial resources of
the parties. "
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spar Kullibii v. UEFA- Page 136

Tribtm<ll Arbitral clu Sport
Courl of Arbitration for Spol't
586. Since the present appeal is lodged against a decision of an exclusively disciplinary
nature rendered by an intemational federation, no costs are payable to the CAS by the
pmties beyond the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 paid by the Club prior to the filing
of its statement of appeal, which is in any event retained by the CAS.
5 87. Pursuant to Article R65 .3 of the CAS Code and in consideration of the complexity and
the outcome of the proceedings as well as the conduct and the financial resources of
the pmties and the submissions on costs submitted by the parties on 26 August 2013,
the Panel rules that each party shall bear its own expenses incuned in connection with
these arbitration proceedings.
CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah<;e Spor Kultibii v. UEFA- Page 138

ON THESE GROUNDS
The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:
1. The appeal filed on 16 July 2013 by Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibli against the decision
rendered by the UEFA Appeals Body on 10 July 2013 is dismissed.
2. The decision rendered by the UEFA Appeals Body on 10 July 2013 is confirmed.
3. The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF
1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii, which is
retained by the CAS.
4. Each patty shall bear its own expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration
proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
Seat of arbitration: Lausanne, Switzerland
Operative part notified on 28 August 2013
Date: 11 April2014
THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
Manfred N~
Presi7
e Panel

CAS Fenerbahçe Gerekçeli Kararları (Trabzonleaks)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CAS Fenerbahçe Gerekçeli Kararları (Trabzonleaks)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

'fribunc!

c:ouri of ArbitratiOi1 ['or Spori

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah~e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

Mr Manfred Nan, Attorney-at-law, Arnhem, the Netherlands

Mr Ulrich Haas, Professor, Zurich, Switzerland

Mr Dennis Koolaard, Attorney-at-law, Arnhem, the Netherlands

in the arbitration between

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Ku!Ubii v. UEFA- Page 2

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

A. The Main Issues

Does article 2.06 UCLR require that article 2.05 was

Was UEFA estopped fi"om instigating disciplinary proceedings

Do the merits of tlte case 1varrant disciplinmy sanctions being

The standard of proof to be applied

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 3

Court of Arbitration for Sport

If so, was the sanction imposed on F enerbahr;e proportionate?

UEFA's alleged violation of the equality principle

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahs:e Spor Kullibii v. UEFA- Page 4

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii (hereinafter: the "Appellant" or "Fenerbah9e") is a

On 21 February, 26 February, 6 March, 7 March, 20 March, and 9 April 2011

On 5 May 2011, Fenerbah9e signed and submitted an UEFA Club Competitions

Tribunal Arbitral c!u Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 5

Court of Arbitration for Sport

On 23 August 2011, Mr Gianni Infantino, UEFA General Secretary, issued a letter to

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 6

On 25 August 2011, following an appeal of Fenerbah9e against the decision of the

On 1 September 2011, Fenerbah9e filed a statement of appeal and/or a request for

On 3 November 2011, CAS rejected a subsequent request for provisional measures of

On 2 December 2011, the Turkish public prosecutor issued a criminal indictment

On 3 January 2012, the TFF Professional Football Disciplinary Committee

On 12 or 15 Febmary 2012, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector received the Police

The TFF Ethics Committee Report

There is no sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport

CAS 2013/N3256 Fenerbahye Spor Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 7

Although match fixing activities should be attributed to Fenerbahi;e Sports Club

"There is no sufficient evidence to form an opinion establish that Aziz Yzldznm

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e SporKuliibii v. UEFA- Page 8

The Decisions of the TFF PFDC

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahye Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 9

3- THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on

"1- THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport

4 THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SANCTION on

The Decisions of the TFF Board of Appeals

Regarding the involvement of Mr Ek~ioglu in attempting to fix the match between

Tribunal Arbitral clu Sport

nos. E.2011/2012-10 and K.2011/2012-1341 dated 06.05.2012 in relation with

On 17 June 2012, an internal email was sent by a Legal Counsel of UEFA

On 18 June 2012, the UEFA Disciplinary Inspector submitted a brief report to

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahye Spar Kuliibii v. UEFA- Page 12

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport

CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbah9e Spor Kullibli v. UEFA- Page 13